Regan v. State

Cody Allen Regan, then 17, put his penis in the hand of his sleeping 13-year-old stepsister and was later indicted for child molestation. He pleaded guilty without a deal and challenged his 20-year felony sentence, arguing Georgia law treated him worse than someone who committed the more serious crime of aggravated child molestation against a victim the same age. That is because the misdemeanor sentencing option for aggravated child molestation kicks in at victim age 13, while the misdemeanor option for simple child molestation requires the victim to be at least 14. The trial court in Newton County rejected his challenge twice, including after the Court of Appeals sent the case back for a ruling on the constitutional issue. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with Regan, holding that this age gap in the two misdemeanor provisions has no rational basis and violates equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. The court reversed the denial of his motion, vacated his sentence, and sent the case back for him to be resentenced as a misdemeanor offender.

The court held that OCGA § 16-6-4(b)'s felony sentencing scheme, as applied to a 17-year-old who molested a 13-year-old victim without an act of sodomy, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for giving a harsher sentence than someone convicted of aggravated child molestation against a same-age victim.

The ruling changes how Georgia courts must sentence certain young offenders convicted of child molestation against 13-year-old victims, potentially converting felony sentences to misdemeanors in similar cases and prompting prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the General Assembly to reconsider the mismatched age thresholds in the statute.

Reversed, sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing

1. The court applied the rational basis test, which asks only whether a law's classification bears some reasonable connection to a legitimate government purpose, since no suspect class or fundamental right was involved.
2. To win an equal-protection claim under this test, a defendant must show he is similarly situated in all relevant respects to a group treated more favorably and that there is no rational basis for the difference.
3. The court found Regan matched the age and relationship requirements for the misdemeanor version of aggravated child molestation (a more serious crime involving sodomy) in every way except that his own conduct did not involve sodomy.
4. Because the legislature's own scheme punishes sodomy-based conduct more harshly in the felony context but more leniently in the misdemeanor context depending on a one-year gap in the victim's age (13 for aggravated, 14 for simple), the court found this arrangement directly undermines the law's own purposes and has no rational basis.
5. The court rejected the State's argument that the scheme rationally distinguishes consensual from non-consensual conduct, since consent is not an element of either offense and the age-threshold mismatch remains unexplained.
6. The court therefore concluded the felony sentence violated equal protection as applied to Regan and ordered him resentenced under the misdemeanor child molestation provision.

• child molestation sentencing
• equal protection clause
• juvenile sex offense sentencing
• OCGA 16-6-4
• misdemeanor vs felony sentencing