People v. A.T. 2026 LEXIS 1659 (CA. 2026)

The California Court of Appeals, Third District, found the trial court abused its discretion where the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving community safety would be “significantly enhanced by requiring A.T.’s continued registration” in arguing that A.T. should remain on the sex offender registry.

The court reasoned in part, “Indeed, although it was its burden to prove A.T. was currently at risk of reoffending, the prosecution presented no evidence that A.T.’s conduct demonstrated a pattern of behavior that required continued registration to significantly enhance community safety. The prosecution did not present a report from a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program discussing A.T.’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, or risk levels on the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders static, dynamic, or violence risk assessment instruments. (§ 290.5, subd. (a)(3).) Other than the details of the registration offense, the prosecution offered only two police reports (with nearly 15 years between them) that do not allege sexual abuse offenses, and its opinion that A.T., now 36 years old, is currently at risk of reoffending.

Consistent with the legislation’s purpose to cull from the registration rolls low-risk offenders so that resources could be concentrated on high-risk ones (Sen. 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 384 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 8, 2017, pp. 12-13), it was incumbent upon the prosecution to present “reasonable, credible, and solid evidence” establishing a current risk of reoffense. (Thai, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 435; see id. at p. 433.) It did not. Without evidence establishing such risk, the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that “ ‘community safety would be significantly enhanced’ ” by continued registration. (Id. at p. 435.) Accordingly, the order of the juvenile court must be reversed.”