holding that retroactive application of an amendment of the state’s SORA that extended the registration period from 10 to 15 years, based solely on the crime committed and absent any evidence of reoffending, was punishment that violated the state constitution
How later courts described this case
- holding that retroactive application of an amendment of the state’s SORA that extended the registration period from 10 to 15 years, based solely on the crime committed and absent any evidence of reoffending, was punishment that violated the state constitution
- holding that the retroactive application of state’s sex offender registration law violated ex post facto prohibition in state constitution
- finding that “the affirmative ‘in person’ registration and verification requirements alone cannot be said to be ‘minor and indirect’ ”
- concluding that respective states’ sex offender registry and notification laws imposed punishment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO, 2025 OK 9 (2025)
¶24 We reject Donaldson's argument and the trial court's conclusion that Starkey says--for every provision of SORA--the version in effect on the date of his conviction applies.
The opinion
GURICH, J.,
concurs:
85 I coneur. In 1998, the Oklahoma Legislature determined that 10 years was an adequate time for sex offenders like Starkey to remain on the registry in order to protect the public. Starkey was sentenced in 1998 and has remained on the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration list since that time. Starkey's registration period was set to expire in 2008. However, because of substantive changes in the law, he has remained on the registry for more than 10 years. The record reflects Starkey has not re-offended. The retroactive application of the numerous changes to OSORA transformed the registry into a system of punishment. The dissenters' reliance on Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 is misplaced because the Alaska registration system reviewed in that case did not have the constitutional infirmities present in this case. The legitimate public safety interest in monitoring sex offender presence in the community is upheld by this decision, while the integrity of the Constitution is maintained.
86 COLBERT, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
1 87 WINCHESTER, J., dissenting (by separate writing) and TAYLOR, J., dissenting.