Opinion

Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

  • 305 P.3d 1004
  • 2013 OK 43
  • 2013 Okla. LEXIS 55
  • 2013 WL 3193674
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Jun 25, 2013
Status
Published
Author
Taylor
On the bench
Colbert, Combs, Edmondson, Gurich, Kauger, Reif, Taylor, Watt, Winchester, Writing
Cited by
95 cases
Authority
More cited than 22.8%

Limited by DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO, 2025 OK 9 (2025)

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.
    Supreme Court of OklahomaFeb 4, 2025Read it

The opinion

1 88 TAYLOR, J.,

dissenting:

The Oklahoma Sex Offender Registry Act is a civil registration provision that reflects the public record and serves to inform citizens of important public information. The legislature clearly intended this to have retroactive application. The Act is a civil, non-punitive, noneriminal regulatory program that does not violate any ex post facto concerns when applied retroactively. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 , Connecticut DPS v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 , 123 S.Ct. 1160 . This registration list is not punishment. It is a convenient uniform reflection of the public record. It is one of the many, many unpleasant lifetime civil consequences of being con-vieted of a felony. The public's right to have this information trumps the discomfort and inconvenience caused to the convicted sex offender.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.