# State v. C.M.

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · May 5, 1999 · 746 So. 2d 410

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7727108

## Case

- **Full name:** State v. C.M., C.D.M., and S.D. [Fn1]
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** May 5, 1999
- **Citations:** 746 So. 2d 410; 1999 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 119
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fry
- **Judges:** Long, McMillan, Cobb, Baschab, Fry
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7727108

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that subjecting juvenile sex offenders to registration and community notification requirements imposed an affirmative disability or restraint in part 3 because it exposed confidential adjudication records to the public
- finding that subjecting juvenile sex offenders to registration and community notification imposed an affirmative disability or restraint in part because it exposed previously confidential adjudication records to public

## Opinion text

FRY, Judge
(concurring in the result).
I agree that Alabama’s Community Notification Act, as it applies to juveniles, unconstitutionally violates a juvenile’s right to equal protection of the law. I further agree that the registration portion of the act, even as it applies to juveniles, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The majority also correctly concludes that its holding effectively severing the reference to juveniles from the definition of “conviction” in § 15-20-21(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975, renders the Act inapplicable to minors, but still applicable to adults.
I, however, disagree with the majority’s analysis and its conclusion that the notification portion of the act constitutes an additional punishment and that it therefore violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. In Robinson v. State, 730 So.2d 252, 254 (Ala.Cr.App.1998), this Court unequivocally stated that the “[rjegistration and community notification requirements for sex offenders do not constitute punishment.” The majority it its analysis relies heavily on State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 , 923 P.2d 1024 (1996), and the history of the Alabama Juvenile Justice Act, including the legislative intent in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, to conclude that the Community Notification Act imposes a punishment on juvenile offenders. The Legislature afforded juveniles the privilege of confidentiality. By including juveniles within the Community Notification Act, the Legislature, acting within its authority, effectively revoked that privilege. That revocation in and of itself does not constitute a punishment. Moreover, juveniles are not punished by the public availability of their otherwise confidential information. Even though public disclosure of registration information affects juveniles whose identities were formerly more protected than adults — • whose criminal acts were always a matter *422 of public record-— public disclosure does not carry such a bite that it should be considered a punishment. Therefore, by addressing the merits of the Ex Post Fac-to claim, the majority, despite its qualification that its holding applies only to juveniles, appears to unnecessarily create an inconsistency in the application of the law. See State v. Myers, supra.
Therefore, I concur in the result only.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7727108. Public record. Not legal advice.