P. v. Cox
Defendant admitted that he violated his probation by failing to annually update his registration as a sex offender in violation of former Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(D).[1] His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to the middle term of two years in state prison. In this appeal he argues that the trial court erred by considering his failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements as a reason to deny probation. He claims the imposition of the registration requirements upon him was a denial of his equal protection rights. We find that defendant forfeited any challenge to the validity of the registration order by failing to object in the trial court, and no inadequate assistance of counsel has been established on appeal. Court therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Cox