UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 12, 2012
RE: LETICIA TERESA JOYNER
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
January 17, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS
On August 29, 2011, the supervisee was sentenced by the Honorable Senior United States District Judge Oliver W. Wanger following a conviction for 18 USC 2421 and 2, Transportation for Prostitution and Aiding and Abetting. She was sentenced to the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 13 months, with a supervised release term of 36 months to follow.
After reviewing the Judgment and Commitment Order, the undersigned officer noticed special conditions that were not recommended or ordered, to wit: 1) sex offender registration; and 2) General Education Development (GED) completion. Further, the statutory mandatory minimum for supervised release in this case should have been 60 months rather than 36 months for the offense of conviction.
In reference to the sex offender registration, it appears that the supervisee is not required by federal law to register as a sex offender. However, because the offense of conviction does involve sexual misconduct, was consensual by the victim, and the offense involved no minors, it appears that the law gives the Court discretion whether or not to order the supervisee to register as a sex offender. According to the California Department of Justice Sex Offender Tracking Program, the supervisee is not required to register per California Penal Code Section 290.
Because of the sexual misconduct involved in the instant case and her previous criminal history that includes eight convictions involving prostitution, the undersigned officer recommends that the Court order sex offender registration for the term of supervised release. Further, it is recommended that the Court order completion of the GED within the first year of supervised release, and that the initial Judgment and Commitment Order be amended to reflect a 60-month term of supervised release rather than the 36 months supervised release previously imposed on August 29, 2011.
The additions and changes are substantive enough that the Court requires counsel to weight in, either with objections or statements of no objection. Counsel have until noon on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 to file their responses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.