Legal Opinion · Dissent

Johnson v. Department of Justice

California Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 2015No. S209167Published

1Dissent

WERDEGAR, J.,

Dissenting. — Because the majority, as I explain, unnecessarily overrules this court’s precedent in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 [39 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, 129 P.3d 29] (Hofsheier), I respectfully dissent.

Petitioner, convicted of oral copulation with a person under 16 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2)),* 1 claims he has been denied equal protection of the law because his oral copulation conviction subjects him to mandatory registration as a sex offender under section 290. Had he instead had sexual intercourse with the victim, petitioner contends, he would have…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Lawrence v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Hunter v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API