# 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/5158779

## 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:** Dissent by Taylor
- **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/5158779

## 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

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5158779. Public record. Not legal advice.