The Court will hear argument in two cases today. One of those is State v. Yeoman.
Richard Yeoman, a registered sex offender in Washington, moved to Idaho in 2007. He was later charged for failing to register. After his motion to dismiss was denied, he entered a conditional plea of guilty preserving his right to appeal.
Mr. Yeoman argues that the sex offender registration statute doesn't apply to him because he was convicted in 1984. Subsections (a), (b) and (d) of I.C. 18-8304 say that the registration requirements apply to those who have been convicted, or who are incarcerated or on supervision as of July 1, 1993, including those who have been convicted in other states. Subsection (c) doesn't have a trigger date, but states that the chapter applies to everyone who "was required to register as a sex offender in any other state or jurisdiction and enters the state to establish permanent or temporary residence." Subsections (b) and (c) of the statute appear to be inconsistent.
Alternatively, he argues that, if the statute applies, it violates his right to travel and gives special preference to citizens of Idaho over other U.S. citizens in violation of the equal protection clause.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment