Hatton

Hatton v. Bonner

Good Law

2003 Daily Journal DAR 11311·346 F.3d 938·2003 WL 22299369·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8999·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20440

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 8, 2003No. 02-15586California5,118 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Graber, J.

We are called on to decide whether the state court’s decision, upholding the application of California’s sex-offender registration statute to Petitioner David Hatton, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Because we answer that question “no,” we must affirm the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.

*942 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1981, Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit oral copulation, in violation of California Penal Code § 220. He was sentenced to a four-year prison term and was released in 1983.

A. California’s Sex-Offender Registration Statute

California’s sex-offender registration statute requires per sons convicted of various sex offenses to register with local law enforcement authorities. Cal-Penal Code § 290. As of 1983, assault with intent to commit oral copulation under Cal ifornia Penal Code § 220 was not among the offenses requiring registration. 1 After the California Court of Appeal pointed out this inexplicable omission in People v. Saunders, 232 Cal.App.3d 1592 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 212, 215 (Cal.App.1991), the California…

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.