Appeals court considers objections in offender-registry board challenge

The Appeals Court heard argument in a challenge to a decision of the Sex Offender Registry Board (docket captioned in the record as John Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board). Appellate counsel argued the board and lower court applied risk factors incorrectly and failed to consider recent controlling studies and precedent.

Attorney Fred Burkholder, representing the appellant, told the panel that studies and a recent decision (cited in counsel’s memorandum) directly addressed the very factors the hearing examiner purported to apply; counsel argued the examiner did not follow that controlling guidance. He said the omission was clear and that the previously decided case (cited as D392396 decision in argument) should have alerted counsel and the panel below to the correct analytical framework.

Counsel for the board (identified in the transcript as David Shanae) responded that, even if counsel’s performance fell below a theoretical standard, the record does not show how different or better advocacy would have altered the outcome. The board’s counsel also focused on the board’s consideration of treatment engagement and the registrant’s refusal or failure to complete treatment, which the examiner considered under risk-factor guidance.

Argument addressed discrete risk-factor numbering in the board’s evaluation (factors cited in briefing as 29, 32, 37 in the transcript), whether counsel had adequate notice and opportunity to present exhibits, and whether the board’s treatment of specific exhibits and studies constituted reversible legal error. The matter was submitted for decision after argument.