Owens v. Urbina
Annotate this CaseGeorgia resident Mario Urbina taught piano lessons to children in Alabama. In early 2012, Urbina was indicted in Alabama for: (1) Enticing a Child to Enter for Immoral Purposes; and (2) Sex Abuse of a Child Less than 12 Years of Age. It was alleged in the indictment that Urbina had sexual contact with a young female in a room at the church where he was teaching piano lessons. Urbina entered into a negotiated plea with Alabama to plead guilty to Interference with Custody, a Class C felony in Alabama that was punishable for up to ten years in prison. Unlike the initial indictment (which was nolle prossed), the information upon which Urbina was charged and convicted for Interference with Custody stated only that Urbina “did knowingly take or entice a child under the age of 18, . . . from the lawful custody of [her] parent, guardian, or other lawful custodian.” Urbina agreed to serve four years imprisonment, but the trial court later reduced the sentence to four years on probation. Subsequently, Urbina sought to transfer his probation supervision from Alabama to Georgia so that he could return to his Georgia residence and reunite with his wife and children. The GDC informed Urbina that he would be required to register as a sex offender. Urbina then filed a petition seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment stating whether he was required to register as a sex offender in Georgia; and (2) a permanent injunction to prevent GDC from requiring Urbina to register as a sex offender as a condition of transferring his probation supervision from Alabama to Georgia. The trial court held, in relevant part, that "Interference with Custody" was a felony in Alabama, but the elements of the offense were identical in substance to the misdemeanor Georgia crime of Interference with Custody. Under Georgia law (and regardless of the underlying facts), a misdemeanor conviction does not trigger the sex offender registration requirement. The trial court found no rational basis for requiring Urbina to register as a sex offender when other persons convicted of the same crime would face no such conduct. The Supreme Court agreed with the outcome, only with slightly different reasoning.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.