COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/02/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHNNIE E. WALLS JR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM DUTY TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER DISMISSED.
FOR APPELLANT: AZKI SHAH.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J, ROBERTS AND FAIR, JJ.
¶1. Ravel Deon Williams filed a petition for relief from registration as a sex offender in Coahoma County Circuit Court. Williams argued the statute, which compels certain convicted felons to register as sex offenders, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Mississippi Constitution. In the alternative, Williams argued he met one of the exemptions from registration as provided by statute, and did not have to register. The circuit court denied Williams's petition, finding the statute did not violate the Constitution, and no exemption applied to Williams. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. The State indicted Williams for three counts of statutory rape on December 15, 1992. The indictment alleged Williams committed three separate sexual acts with Jane Smith. During each act, Smith was under the age of fourteen, while Williams was between fourteen and sixteen years old.
¶3. Williams entered a guilty plea, and received a sentence of twelve years, with six years suspended. Williams served his prison sentence, and obtained a discharge from prison on February 21, 1995. Williams continued with post-release supervision until receiving a discharge of obligations on February 15, 2000.
¶4. After his release from probation, Williams was required to register as a sex offender due to the nature of the crimes he had committed. Williams complied with the registration requirements under Mississippi Code Annotated section 45-33-25 (Supp. 2014). Though he registered, Williams filed a petition for relief from the registration obligations.
¶5. Williams first argued the registration requirements violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in Article 3, Section 16 of the Mississippi Constitution. Williams alternatively contended that if the requirement did not offend the Constitution, then he met an exemption provided by Mississippi Code Annotated section 45-33-23(h)(ii) (Supp. 2014).
¶6. The State opposed the petition arguing the statute did not violate any Ex Post Facto Clause, and Williams did not meet the exemption in section 45-33-23(h)(ii). The State further argued that Williams also failed to meet other statutory exemptions in Mississippi Code Annotated section 45-33-47 (Supp. 2014), which Williams did not assert on appeal. The circuit court agreed with the ...