P. v. Powell
Defendant James Harold Powell III appeals from the denial of his motion for relief from the mandatory lifetime registration requirement as a sex offender under Penal Code[1]section 290. Defendant contends (1) the registration requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause, and (2) the trial court erred in relying on hearsay evidence from the preliminary hearing transcript to establish the circumstances of the crime. The People agree that the trial court erred in upholding the mandatory lifetime registration requirement and concede that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for a determination whether defendant should be required to register under the discretionary principles of section 290.006. The People also appear to concede the validity of defendants challenge to the use of testimony at the preliminary hearing taken under Proposition 115. We accept the Peoples concessions of error, and Court therefore reverse.
Comments on P. v. Powell