CPCS Criminal Defense Training Unit Case Summaries
Week of February 21, 2011
Written by Scott Miller CPCS SORB Unit
Elroy E. v. Commonwealth, Docket Number: SJC -10734
Holding: SORB statute does not violate equal protection where a juvenile who was adjudicated prior to December 12, 1999 is barred from seeking relief from registration in the sentencing court.
http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=20501&sid=120
G.L. c. 6, § 178E(f) provides that persons convicted or adjudicated of an enumerated sex offense on or after December 12, 1999 and who are not sentenced to immediate confinement may seek relief from registration in the sentencing court within fourteen days of sentencing. Elroy E., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent and sentenced in 1994. When his motion for relief from registration was denied, he appealed, arguing that the statute denied him equal protection.
The SJC found no equal protection violation. Because the statute does not burden a fundamental right or impact a suspect class, the juvenile was unable to satisfy the "heavy burden" of showing that the classification was not rationally related to a legitimate State purpose. Moreover, the inability of the juvenile to seek relief from the sentencing court is offset by SORB's power to relieve the registration requirement in an administrative hearing, G.L. c. 178L(1)(c), a decision that is also subject to judicial review pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 14. See G.L. c. 6, § 178M.
SORB Practice Note:
Motions for relief from registration should always be filed prior to the classification hearing. If the Hearing Examiner denies the motion, that decision is subject to review in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, §14. The Superior Court may set aside or modify an agency decision that prejudices a party's "substantial rights" if the decision was in violation of constitutional provisions; beyond the scope of its authority or jurisdiction; unsupported by substantial evidence; arbitrary or capricious; an abuse of discretion; or otherwise not in accordance with law. See Doe 15606 v. SORB, 452 Mass. 784, 788 (2008). Thus, sex offenders have "substantial rights" pursuant to statute, even if the classification scheme does not burden a fundamental right for purposes of equal protection.
The SJC emphasizes that its decision is based in part on the availability of "meaningful review" of a motion for relief from registration filed at the administrative hearing. The absence of a meaningful review by the hearing examiner, i.e., a summary denial of a motion for relief, may provide another basis for challenging the hearing examiner's decision in the Superior Court.
