Shoemaker

Shoemaker v. Harris

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 76·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 234·214 Cal. App. 4th 1210·2013 WL 1224709
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2013No. B237986California8,911 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chaney, J.

*1213 Opinion

Appellant Stephen P. Shoemaker was convicted in 2004 of misdemeanor possession of child pornography and misdemeanor duplication of child pornography. His conviction was affirmed by the superior court appellate division on January 3, 2006, and his petition for certification to the Court of Appeal was denied.

Shoemaker filed this action in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 United States Code section 1983 , alleging that the mandatory sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code section 290 deny him equal protection of the laws because they subject him to mandatory lifetime registration, although others convicted of far more egregious sex crimes involving minors are subject only to discretionary registration under Penal Code section 290.006. Upon respondent’s demurrer, the superior court ruled that the claim could not be heard as a civil action, and on that basis it transferred the case to a criminal trial court where it was construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and was denied on its merits.

Appealing from these rulings, Shoemaker asks that we find the superior court erred in refusing to hear his civil rights…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.