# Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 25, 2013 · 305 P.3d 1004

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5158778

## Case

- **Full name:** James M. STARKEY, Sr. v. The OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Justin Jones as Director
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 25, 2013
- **Citations:** 305 P.3d 1004; 2013 OK 43; 2013 Okla. LEXIS 55; 2013 WL 3193674
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gurich
- **Judges:** Colbert, Combs, Edmondson, Gurich, Kauger, Reif, Taylor, Watt, Winchester, Writing
- **Cited by:** 95 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO, 2025 OK 9 (2025).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5158778

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- finding legislature intended SORA amendments to be retroactive to pre-existing offenders, and amendments are not ex post facto

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5158778. Public record. Not legal advice.