Requirement may foil defendant’s petition to annul

NASHUA – Michael Danklefs pleaded guilty back in May 2008 to two felony counts of prohibited use of computer services, which accused him of using the internet to try and solicit sex from an underage girl.

Danklefs, whose court records include his alias, “gentltiger,” was sentenced to nine months in jail, put on probation for five years after his release, and ordered to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Danklefs served his time and successfully completed his probationary period, which ended in November 2013. Interested in pursuing an annulment of the charges, Danklefs stayed out of trouble while waiting out the required five-year period, then filed his annulment petition in early December.

Everything seemed to be in place, until a prosecutor, in objecting to the petition, argued that Danklefs had completed all the terms of his sentence but one – the requirement that he register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life.

If a judge buys Assistant County Attorney Brian Greklek-McKeon’s argument and grants his objection motion, Danklefs will never be able to file his petition because the registration requirement will be in effect until Danklefs dies.

The rather unusual case was scheduled for a hearing Thursday in Hillsborough County Superior Court-South, but it was continued after Danklefs’s attorneys filed a last-minute motion to continue the hearing, citing a scheduling conflict.

Greklek-McKeon assented to the motion to continue, and it was granted by Judge Charles Temple. A new date for the hearing is in the scheduling process.

Danklefs, who turns 44 on Saturday, and whose most recent address is in Manchester, was indicted on the two charges in April 2007. He was accused of communicating online in mid-February 2007 with who he thought was a 14-year-old girl for the purposes of engaging in various sex acts, but the “girl” turned out to be a Hudson police detective.

Greklek-McKeon, while acknowledging Danklefs fulfilled his jail sentence and probation as required, and remained on good behavior throughout, said it “does not mean he has completed all of the terms and conditions of his sentence.”

Lifetime sex offender registration, Greklek-McKeon wrote, was one of the conditions the court “specifically ordered” when sentencing Dankfels.

By the “very definition” of the statute covering lifetime sex offender registration, Greklek-McKeon wrote, Dankfels “cannot possibly have completed the term of his sentence requiring lifetime registration as a sexual offender.”

Dankfels is therefore “ineligible to annul these two convictions,” Greklek-McKeon added, “unless, and until, he is relieved” of his lifetime registry requirement.

Even if Dankfels was eligible to petition for annulment, Greklek-McKeon wrote, he indicated he would still vigorously oppose the petition due to the nature of the offenses.

“On the day the petitioner was arrested, he traveled to an address at which he believed he was going to meet … a person he believed was a 14-year-old girl … in order to engage in sexual acts.”

Dankfels “attempted to prey on a young girl through the use of an online chat room, and was only stopped by the fact he was actually talking with the police,” Greklek-McKeon wrote.

“This conduct is particularly dangerous given the pervasive influence the internet and social media have in our society,” he added. “Removing these convictions from (Dankfels’s) record would not be consistent with the public welfare.”

Dean Shalhoup may be reached at 594-1256,, or @Telegraph_DeanS.