Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Tennessee

Several courts have ruled that new registration requirements for people previously convicted of sex crimes do not violate the ex post facto clause. The reason is that requiring people to register is not a criminal charge or a punishment. There's room to disagree with this rationale, but it is the law.

The same should be true of reclassifying a type of crime as a violent offense. The new classification does not change what the defendant was convicted of, and it does not add to his punishment. It might be reason to impose a harsher sentence if he is later convicted of another crime, but the sentence would be for the new crime and not the old one.

Whether this *particular* crime meets the definition of a violent crime. By that I mean both the statutory definition and the facts of the particular case. I don't have enough information to answer that question.

Let me add that parts of your story don't make sense. If the 1983 conviction is the only one on the offender's record and the registration requirement took effect in 2014, why was he sentenced to prison in 2008? And if the court found that he had no "intent to commit sexual battery", what was he convicted of? Part of the reason I can't say whether the crime can be treated as violent is that you haven't revealed what it was.

I made an editing mistake in my prior answer. The third paragraph should have said:

"Whether this *particular* crime meets the definition of a violent crime is a different question. There might be grounds to argue that the crime doesn't qualify. By that I mean both the statutory definition and the facts of the particular case. I don't have enough information to answer that question."