State Of Louisiana v. Joseph Frank Bedford

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2020 KW 0884

VERSUS

JOSEPH FRANK BEDFORD NOVEMBER 10, 2020

In Re: Joseph Frank Bedford, applying for supervisory writs,
21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa,
Nos. 1702666 & 1901929.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. This Court is bound to apply the

pronouncements of the Louisiana Supreme Court to challenges to

the sex offender registration and notification requirements

which are not intended to be punitive, but rather, they are

remedial legislation intended to protect public safety. See
Smith v. State, 2010- 1140 ( La. 1/ 24/ 12), 84 So. 3d 487, 497- 98;
State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 2000- 0172 ( La. 2/ 21/ 01), 779
So - 2d 735, 749- 50, cert. denied, 533 U. S. 936, 121 S. Ct. 2566,
150 L. Ed. 2d 730 and 534 U. S. 892, 122 S. Ct. 208, 151 L. Ed. 2d 148
2001). Furthermore, it is well- settled that the registration

and notification law in effect at the time of either release or

sentencing may apply to the convicted sex offender without

violating the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state

constitutions. See State v. Patin, 2002- 1126 ( La. 4/ 9/ 03), 842
So. 2d 322, 325. However, in light of the intents -effects test

pronounced by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. 84, 92, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 1146, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 ( 2003),
we observe that the higher courts, upon a proper showing, may
wish to consider revisiting the determination that the " effects"

of sex offender registration and notification laws are not

punitive. See Doe v. Rausch, 382 F. Supp. 3d 783, 799- 800 ( E. D.
Tenn. 2019).

JMG
PMC
WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUT CIE RK
- OF COURT
FOR THE COURT