Vigil

MEMORANDUM *

Vigil argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to instruct the jury that a “willful” failure to register in violation of Cal. PemCode § 290 requires a finding that appellant had actual knowledge of his duty to register. Although the instruction was erroneous, 1 we cannot reverse for this constitutional error if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The California Court of Appeal held that the error was harmless because (1) Vigil was properly notified of his duty to register a change of address in 1987 and 1990; (2) Vigil did register his change of address from Buena Vista to Floyd Street in 1990, showing that he knew of and understood his duty; and (3) when apprehended, Vigil told police that his duty to register his change of address had ended because his sex offenses had occurred “more than ten years ago” (though he did not testify to this belief), yet his 1987 and 1990 notifications had included no such time limit. The court emphasized Vigil’s prior compliance as showing knowledge of his duty and the absence of any evidence to the contrary. (Vigil did not testify).

This state court decision was not “an unreasonable…