UNITED STATES v. PRETTY ON TOP (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-27No. No. 20-30202

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Pretty On Top's conviction, holding that SORNA's registration requirements are constitutional as applied to juvenile offenders and that his claims were foreclosed by binding precedent.

Anthony Pretty On Top was convicted at trial of failing to register as a sex offender under federal law (SORNA). On appeal, he argued that applying SORNA to him violated the Constitution because he was a juvenile when he committed the underlying sex offense. He raised several constitutional theories, including claims under the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Eighth Amendment, and protections for due process and equal protection.

The court rejected all of Pretty On Top's arguments as foreclosed by existing precedent. Prior Ninth Circuit decisions have established that SORNA's registration requirements are not punitive in nature and therefore do not trigger Ex Post Facto protections, and that due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment challenges to SORNA's application to juvenile offenders have already been rejected. The court also found that Pretty On Top's claim regarding potential relief under Montana state law was not ripe for review because it depended on future events that might not occur.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when applied to juvenile offenders
Whether SORNA violates the Eighth Amendment, due process, or equal protection rights of juvenile offenders
Whether differences between state and federal registration requirements create constitutional defects

Procedural posture

Pretty On Top appealed his bench-trial conviction for violating SORNA, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied to juvenile sex offenders.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Pretty On Top appeals his bench-trial conviction for failure to register as a sexual offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), arguing that the district court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal because SORNA is constitutionally infirm as applied to juvenile offenders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012), we affirm.

Pretty On Top contends that, because he was a juvenile when he committed the underlying sex offense, the application of SORNA to him violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Eighth Amendment, as well his rights to due process and equal protection. Pretty On Tops arguments are foreclosed. See United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that, because SORNAs requirements are not punitive, it is not a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause to apply SORNA to a defendant based on his conviction as a juvenile sex offender); Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d. at 1008-14 (rejecting due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment challenges to SORNAs registration requirements as applied to juvenile offenders). While Pretty On Top argues that this court “should readdress the issue of whether SORNA as it pertains to juvenile delinquents is constitutionally infirm,” he does not point to any authority that is “clearly irreconcilable” with our previous decisions. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by prior precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with an intervening decision of a higher court).

To the extent Pretty On Top contends that SORNAs registration requirements violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because he could potentially obtain relief from his registration requirements under Montana law while still being required to register under SORNA, we agree with the district court that this claim is not ripe. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) (claim is not ripe if it rests upon future events that may not occur). In any event, this court has consistently held that SORNAs registration requirements are nonpunitive, even where there are differences between the applicable state and federal reporting requirements. See United States v. Elk Shoulder, 738 F.3d 948, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2013); Elkins, 683 F.3d at 1048-49.

AFFIRMED.