Residency restrictions imposed on required to register as a sex offender must be adequately explained to show that the restrictions are reasonable.
William Rudd was charged with engaging in sexual conduct with young boys. Mr. Rudd was given a plea offer and pled guilty. As a result of his guilty plea, the district court sentenced Mr. Rudd to prison and as a special condition of his supervised release, the court imposed a residency restriction, which prohibited Mr. Rudd from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park, public swimming pools, playgrounds, youth centers, or any place primarily used by persons under the age of 18 years old. The Court did not give an explanation for the residency restriction placed on Mr. Rudd.
The Court of Appeals reversed the residency restrictions imposed on Mr. Rudd. The Court of Appeal explained that a district court commits procedural error when it fails to adequately explain the sentence imposed on a defendant. The sentencing judge must show and explain that the sentence was reasonable. Here, the district court failed to offer any logical explanation as to the residency requirements placed on Mr. Rudd. The court did not explain why Mr. Rudd was required to abide by the 2,000 foot residency requirement. Even if Mr. Rudd’s offense showed that he was dangerous to children, it was not clear from the record how the residency requirement would prevent Mr. Rudd from contacting minor children. Therefore, Mr. Rudd’s sentence was vacated.
If you or a loved one is facing a sex crime, contact our sex crime attorneys at Wallin and Klarich. Wallin & Klarich will help protect your rights and find the best defense strategy for your case. For over 30 years, our attorneys have been helping clients with residency restrictions. Please call us at (877) 466-5245. We will be there when you call.