Moore v. 4th Judicial District Attorney.
2024 COA 48. No. 23CA1538. Sex Offender Registration—Petition for Removal from Registry.
May 2, 2024
Moore has two out-of-state convictions for sexual offenses involving minors: one from Minnesota in 1987, when he was 18 years old, and another from Indiana in 1999. Moore subsequently moved to Colorado and registered as a sex offender based on his Indiana conviction. In 2023, Moore petitioned to discontinue his sex offender registration. The People objected, arguing that Moore was ineligible to petition for removal from the sex offender registry (1) under CRS § 16-22-113(3)(c), because he has more than one conviction as an adult for unlawful sexual behavior; and (2) under CRS § 16-22-113(3)(b)(II), because his Indiana offense, if committed in Colorado, would constitute sexual assault on a child. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Moore’s Indiana offense, if committed in Colorado, would constitute sexual assault on a child under CRS § 16-22-113(3)(b)(II), so Moore was ineligible to petition for removal from the sex offender registry.
On appeal, Moore argued that CRS § 16-22-113(3)(c)’s reference to CRS § 16-22-103(2) means that CRS § 16-22-113(3)(c) applies only to convictions for unlawful sexual behavior entered on and after July 1, 1994, so he is eligible to petition for relief because his Minnesota conviction does not count. Specifically, he maintained that CRS § 16-22-103(2)(a) requires only persons convicted of unlawful sexual behavior on and after July 1, 1994, to register as sex offenders, so by referencing that section, CRS § 16-22-113(3)(c) also applies only to convictions for unlawful sexual behavior entered on and after July 1, 1994. However, the reference in CRS § 16-22-113(3)(c) to CRS § 16-22-103(2) does not incorporate the latter’s time limitation in providing that a person with more than one conviction as an adult for unlawful sexual behavior is ineligible to petition for removal from the sex offender registry. Because Moore has two convictions for unlawful sexual behavior in 1987 and 1999, CRS § 16-22-113(3)(c) renders him ineligible for removal from the sex offender registry. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Moore’s petition to deregister.
The order was affirmed.