Skip to content
Name: People v. Acosta
Case #: E046956
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/06/2009

Imposition of a 15 year-to-life sentence under Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5), following amendment of Penal Code section 784.7, does not result in violation of the proscription against ex post facto laws. In 2001-2002, when appellant violated section 288 in San Bernardino County, section 784.7 conferred jurisdiction where the offense occurred. Then in 2007, appellant violated section 288 against a different victim in Riverside County. In the interim, section 784.7 was amended to hold that when more than one violation of section 288 occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred. Both offenses were tried in Riverside County, enabling the prosecution to subject appellant to the enhanced penalty of section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5). The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5) allegation on ex post facto grounds. Because section 667.61 (e)(5) was already in effect when appellant committed the Riverside offense, he had notice that if he committed the Riverside offense, he could be tried for both offenses in Riverside County, so as to subject him to section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5).