JEFFREY SCOTT SANCHEZ v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Alpert, Filed Nov. 6, 2013,
Ex Post Facto Law- Sex Offender Registry- Defendant convicted of 4th degree sex offense before such individuals were required to register as sex offenders could not be forced to register

Interpreting CoA plurality in Doe

Ex Post Facto Law:
– Both the Supreme Court (US Constitution) and the Maryland Court of Appeals (MD Constitution) used to follow the “disadvantage analysis.”
– Disadvantage analysis consists of two factors: 1) whether the law applies to events that occurred before its enactment, and 2) whether the application “disadvantages the offender.”
– The Supreme Court in Collins v. Youngblood switched to a more-narrow “intent-effects” test
– The “intent-effects test” consists of 1) determination of whether the state legislature intended the statute to be a
civil, non-punitive regime, and, 2) if so, whether the statute was nonetheless so “punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the] intention to deem it civil.”
– A plurality of the Court of Appeals in Doe rejected the Supreme Court “intent-effects” approach and broke from the former parity of US and MD ex post facto law, leaving the broader “disadvantage analysis” for MD ex post facto law