Maryland sex chat room
Did the [c]ircuit [c]ourt err in determining that [a]ppellant was subject to lifetime registration on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry when he was only required to register for a ten-year term at the time of his sentence? Did the [c]ircuit [c]ourt err in determining that the additional registration requirements imposed upon [a]ppellant by the 20 amendments to the Maryland Sex Offender Registry Act did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws under the Maryland Declaration of Rights? SORNA required states to set up a sex offender registry and specified what information must be contained in the registry. In October 2009, Doe brought a declaratory judgment suit in the circuit court, seeking an order that he was not required to register as a sex offender. 88, 115, 73 A.3d 254 (2013) (concluding that, under the Marks Rule, the narrowest holding of the Supreme Court's decision in Williams v.
The second question presented is one of first impression. In large measure, the reason for the 20 changes to the Act was that the United States Congress, in 2006, passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). In addition, SORNA authorized the United States Attorney General to issue guidelines to the states specifying additional information about sex offenders that should be compiled and contained in the registry. On July 2, 2008, the Attorney General issued such guidelines. Doe argued that a registration requirement would make his plea invalid as involuntary, because he was not informed that he would have to register as a sex offender when he entered into the plea agreement in 2006. Thus the Marks Rule requires us to determine the common thread running through the plurality and concurring opinions of Doe I.
Because the Marks Rule directs us to the narrowest ground common to the plurality and the concurrence, Judge Mc Donald's interpretation of Article 17 as read in pari materia with the less expansive federal ex post facto clause represents the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.” See Wilkerson, 420 Md.
In 20, the Maryland Sex Offender Registration Act (“the Act”) was amended. The 2010 amendment made additional changes, which are discussed infra. The Maryland Act has not been applied, and is not now being applied, to Mr.
Franklin David Long (“Long”) filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“the Department”) in which he asked the court to declare:(1) That the Plaintiff be removed from the Maryland Sex Offender Registry since his original sentence required only a ten (10) year registration term which should have expired in 2011; or, in the alternative,(2) Should this Court find that the Plaintiff must remain on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry, that the Plaintiff only be required to register once a year with his supervising authority as opposed to every three months; and further(3) That the terms of his registration be in accordance with his original sentence and the laws in place at the time of his crime, and not pursuant to the retroactive application of the 2001, 20 amendments to the Maryland sex offender statute[.]The Department filed an answer to the complaint, after which both Long and the Department filed motions for summary judgment. Appellant contends that the registration requirement set forth in the amendments to the Act should not apply to him because, if so applied, the amended statute would violate his rights as guaranteed by Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which reads: That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore no ex post facto law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required. In Smith, the United States Supreme Court examined an Alaskan sex registration statute that went into effect in 1994 and required sex offenders and child kidnappers to register as sex offenders and to re-register every three months thereafter. If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State's] intention to deem it civil. at 92 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Following his sentencing, Doe filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence challenging both the fine and the requirement that he register as a child sex offender. Ed.2d 89 (2012), was the position representing the common point of agreement between the plurality and concurring opinions), cert denied, ____ U.
Long filed a timely appeal to this Court in which he raises two questions that he phrases as follows:1. States that did not comply with SORNA and the guidelines, risked losing 10% of the Byrne Justice Assistant grants that would have otherwise been allowed. The requirement that Doe register as a sex offender was a result of the 2009 amendment to MSORA retroactively requiring offenders who were convicted on or after October 1, 1995, but committed a sexual offense before that date, to register for the first time.
The amendments, insofar as here pertinent, are set forth in Maryland Code (2008 Repl. In his complaint requesting declaratory relief, Long asserted that by requiring him to continue to register as a sex offender after September 18, 2011, the statute violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws set forth in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Long in any way so as to violate either the federal or state ex post facto clauses. Long is therefore obligated to continue to register as a [T]ier III sex offender for life in accordance with the requirements of the Maryland Act. FIRST ISSUE PRESENTEDLong's first argument is phrased as follows “[t]he [c]ircuit [c]ourt erred in determining that [a]ppellant should not be removed from the MSOR [Maryland Sex Offender Registry] because the ten-year registration term to which he was obligated has expired.” The key phrase in this argument is “the ten-year registration term to which he was obligated has expired.” Actually, in 2001, when Long was sentenced, as a collateral consequence to pleading guilty to a third-degree sex offense involving a female under the age of 14 years, Long was “obligated” to register as a sex offender for life - not ten (10) years. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 222 Md.
Vol., 2015 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article (“Crim. The amendments to the Act, reclassified persons in Mr. Although the amendments did not change the time period for which an offender was required to register, it did require that the offender “register in person every 3 months with a local law enforcement unit” for the life of the registrant. This is true, according to Long, because he was “originally required to register for ten (10) years and now must register for life.”Long asserts, in the alternative, that in the event that this Court should determine that he must remain on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry for life, we should, nevertheless, decide that he should only have to meet the reporting requirements that were in place in 2000 and not the more stringent requirements currently imposed upon third-degree sex offenders. As a result of a 2010 amendment to the Maryland Act, Mr. In his brief, Long admits that this is what the law provided in 2001, the year that he entered his guilty plea.