Skip to content
Name: People v. Bohannon
Case #: B115308
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/28/2000
Subsequent History: Review denied 11/21/00
Summary

Bohannon and Hagemann were convicted of multiple sex offenses involving rape by use of drugs. On appeal Hagemann contended that the court erred by failing to release the addresses and phone numbers of two of the victims. Instead, court had ordered the district attorney to make the witnesses available for interviews, and the defense subsequently interviewed the two witnesses. The appellate court found no error. Although failure to disclose the address of a victim was a statutory violation, discovery violations are measured by a posttrial standard. Here, appellant could not establish that the information not disclosed was exculpatory and that there was a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Remand for resentencing was required where appellant Hagemann received the probation report prepared for the sentencing hearing on the date of sentencing. Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (b)(2)(D), provides that the report shall be made available at least five days prior to the hearing. The failure to grant appellant’s request for a short continuance rendered the sentence fundamentally unfair. Appellant Hagemann was properly sentenced under Penal Code section 667.6, subdivision (c), which provides for full, separate and consecutive terms for each violation of section 220, assault with intent to commit specified sex offenses. The language of the statute added in 1988 did not intend to restrict application of the statute to exclude section 220 from the section 667.6 sentencing scheme.