Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Ex-Priest’s Request for Removal From Sex Offender Registry Properly Denied
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Fifth District Court of Appeal yesterday rebuffed the bid of a former priest to have his name, photograph and identifying information removed from the California Department of Justice’s online Sex Offender Registry.
In a “By the Court” opinion that was not certified for publication—signed by Acting Presiding Justice Herbert I. Levy and Justices Charles Poochigian and Rosendo Peña, Jr.—the decision of a Merced Superior Court to deny the relief sought by Robert Gamel was affirmed.
Gamel pled guilty in March, 2016 to one felony count of possession of child pornography; began serving an 11-month jail sentence in June of that year; and was released from custody in December. He was arrested on April 12 based on possession of three images depicting child pornography, pled no-contest last November, and was sentenced last month to four years in state prison.
Yesterday’s opinion deals with the posting of information on him, under California’s “Megan’s Law,” as the result of the first conviction.
Penal Code Section
Gamel, who was relieved of duties as a priest in 2016, claimed eligibility for removal of the information pursuant to Penal Code §290.46(e)(2)(C). That section authorizes relief where “all victims involved in the commission of the offense were at least 16 years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense.”
The photograph in issue was taken by a 15-year-old boy of himself. It wound up online and the boy and his parents came to Gamel—known as “Father Bob,” he was then lead priest of St. Joseph Church in Los Banos—for counseling.
Gamel had weekly “confession meetings” with the boy until, when he was 17, the youth ceased participation. The opinion explains:
“According to the victim, Gamel’s behavior toward him became increasingly inappropriate.”
Police interviewed Gamel and learned of his possession of the image which he had downloaded.
Contention on Appeal
On appeal, he argued that §290.46(e)(2)(C) does apply to him, declaring:
“The phrase ‘at the time of the commission of the offense’ plainly means the date upon which the charging document states that the defendant committed the offense—or the date to which the defendant pleaded, or a date determined by the finder of fact.”
When Gamel was charged, the boy depicted in the photograph was 17.
The appeals court responded:
“Gamel admitted he understood the victim was around 15 years old in the images. Gamel further stated that he counseled the victim until the victim was 17 years old and that he possessed the images ‘years prior to him holding the confession sessions.’ Thus, Gamel’s own statements belie his claim of eligibility for exclusion. He indirectly admitted that he possessed the images when the victim was under 16 years old. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied Gamel’s petition.
The case is Gamel v. California Department of Justice, F075132.
|
|
|
Above is the posting relating to Gamel on the state’s Sex Offender Registry. |
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company