AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender. He argued that his failure to register was not willful because he was homeless, had not moved to a new residence after being forced to leave his state-subsidized housing due to lack of funding, had no residence to report, and the authorities were aware of his whereabouts at all times through his ankle monitor (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he did not willfully fail to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) due to his homelessness, lack of a new residence, and the authorities' knowledge of his whereabouts through an ankle monitor (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's homelessness and the authorities' knowledge of his whereabouts through an ankle monitor excuse his failure to register as a sex offender under SORNA (paras 1-2).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender (para 5).

Reasons

• Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives concurred in the opinion. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument, noting that SORNA's registration requirements are broadly worded to include situations of homelessness and require sex offenders to register each address or temporary location with the county sheriff. The Court found that the Defendant's difficult situation did not provide a justification or excuse for noncompliance with SORNA. It held that sufficient evidence was presented of the Defendant's willful failure to register as a sex offender, emphasizing the purpose of SORNA to protect communities from sex offenders and the importance of maintaining accurate information on convicted sex offenders. The Court concluded that the registration requirements for homeless sex offenders did not create an exception for those who relocate often and that the adverse consequences of SORNA's registration requirements are not excessive in relation to its public safety purpose (paras 2-5).