From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Farkas

Superior Court of Delaware, for Sussex County
Jul 11, 2005
ID# 00501006268 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 11, 2005)

Opinion

ID# 00501006268.

July 11, 2005


ORDER


On June 17, 1996, Nicholas D. Farkas ("Defendant") entered a plea of nolle contendere to a charge of juvenile delinquency consisting of Unlawful Sexual Contact 3rd in violation of Title 11, Section 767 of the Delaware Code. Title 11, Section 4120 of the Delaware Code, as it read on the date of Defendant's adjudication, required persons in Defendant's position to register with the Superintendent of the Delaware State Police.

The statute at issue became effective June 27, 1994, but was later amended with the removal of the mandatory registration requirements for misdemean or sex crimes.

By operation of law the registration requirements of section 4120 became effective at the time of Defendant's adjudication. Defendant's present claim that he was never provided with sufficient notice of the requirements imposed by section 4120 is without merit. The amended order of the Family Court, issued in 2003, viewed in combination with the statements made by Defendant's probation officer provide ample evidence that Defendant was sufficiently apprised of the registration requirements. The foregoing statement is premised on the fact that the amended order of the Family Court does not serve as a nunc pro tunc entry of judgment, but instead serves solely as supplementary notification provided to Defendant of a requirement already set in place by the 1996 Family Court adjudication. See State v. Clark, 1999 WL 988122 (Wash.Ct.App.) (finding no need for nunc pro tunc entry where court already implied extended jurisdiction in order). Since the requirement to register existed at the time of the 1996 Family Court adjudication, it is correct to state that the requirement to reregister, found in Title 11, Section 4120(f) of the Delaware Code, exists at present.

In the interest of Nicholas D. Farkas, File No. JS 96-0018 (Del.Fam.Ct. Nov. 10, 2003).

A nunc pro tunc entry of judgment is designed to exhibit correctly on the record a judgment previously rendered and not correctly placed on the record. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 123.

Any claim of a mistake of law cannot avoid this conclusion. Ignorance or mistake of law is an affirmative defense that has limited application to discrete cases. Bryson v. State, 840 A.2d 631, 636 (Del. 2003) (citations omitted). Public policy presupposes that all persons will inform themselves reliably about the law. Id.

In this regard, it is settled Delaware law that the sex registration and community notification requirements are collateral rather than direct consequences of a defendant's plea. Modi v. State, 1999 WL 167835 (Del.Super.Ct.), aff'd, 744 A.2d 988 (Table), 1999 WL 1319150 (Del.). From this perspective, the Family Court judges were not required to inform Mr. Farkas about them. Further, the purpose and implementation of registration and notification statute are remedial. Any deterrent punitive impact does not impose punishment for purposes of constitutional challenges under the ex post facto, double jeopardy, bill of attainder, and cruel and unusual punishment Clauses. Id. Recently, the Superior Court rejected a claim that a 1996 sentencing order should be vacated for failure of the Court to advise the defendant of registration and community notification requirements. In Re Wilkerson, 2005 WL 103070 (Del.Super.Ct.).

Furthermore, Defendant's contention that all records relating to registration should be destroyed is not meritorious. As stated in Defendant's motion, the age at which records are to be destroyed is 25, and Defendant's birth date is March 25, 1982. This does not make Defendant 25 years old, as is claimed in the Motion, but instead makes Defendant 23 years old. He is below the age required for the destruction of registration information.

Considering the foregoing, IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2005, that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the information is denied.


Summaries of

State v. Farkas

Superior Court of Delaware, for Sussex County
Jul 11, 2005
ID# 00501006268 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 11, 2005)
Case details for

State v. Farkas

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF DELAWARE v. NICHOLAS D. FARKAS, Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, for Sussex County

Date published: Jul 11, 2005

Citations

ID# 00501006268 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 11, 2005)