Skip to content
Name: People v. Gray
Case #: B224430
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/14/2011
Subsequent History: 12/14/11 rev. granted (S197749)

Every lewd act is also a battery, therefore the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on battery (Pen. Code, sec. 242), as a lesser included offense of a lewd and lascivious act (Pen. Code, sec. 288, subd. (a)). Battery encompasses the slightest touching, with a general intent, so long as it is harmful or offensive. Any touching of a child for the purpose of sexual arousal would also be a touching that is harmful or offensive and constitute a battery. In this case, the defendant's touching of the victim met both definitions and was such that no reasonable…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brooks
Case #: 8-Sep
Court: CA Superior Court
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/24/2009

The criminal conviction assessment authorized by Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1) does not constitute a prohibited ex post facto law. Section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), effective on January 1, 2009, requires imposition of a $30 assessment for each misdemeanor or felony offense. The appellate division of the superior court held that imposition of the fee for an offense predating the effective date of the statute does not result in prohibited ex post facto law for the following reasons: the stated purpose of the statute is to fund court facilities, not to punish; the statute is part of a broad legislative…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Valenzuela
Case #: B209837
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/07/2009

Under ex post facto principles, the accessible amount of a sex offender fine must be calculated as of the date of the offense. Appellant was convicted of a sex offense that occurred in 2003 and 2004, and, as a result of the conviction, was liable for imposition of a fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3. Although the fine amount prescribed by the statute at the time of the offense was $200, the court imposed a $300 amount reflecting the modification to the statute in 2006, increasing the amount for a first offense to $300. Because the $300 amount violated…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Reyes
Case #: B186285
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 07/28/2008

A co-defendant's plea agreement requiring him to testify fully and truthfully at appellant's proceedings, in exchange for the promised benefit, does not deny appellant a fair trial. At the beginning of the third murder trial involving appellant and the co-defendant, following two previous trials where the jury could not reach a verdict, appellant's co-defendant entered into an agreement with the prosecution whereby he pled guilty to second degree murder and agreed to testify truthfully about the victim's death. The co-defendant had been interviewed three times by detectives prior to this trial and although he had identified appellant as…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. High
Case #: C044943
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/28/2004

A new state penalty that is calculated as a percentage of overall fines imposed is penal in nature and may not be imposed retroactively. The defendant here asked the appellate court to strike the state surcharge imposed under Penal Code section 1465.7, as well as the state court facilities construction penalty under Government Code section 70732, on the grounds that those penalties were enacted after the commission of his offense, and imposing them in his case violated the ex post facto clause. The Attorney General conceded the issue as to the Penal Code section 1465.7 surcharge, but argued…

View Full Summary
Name: Stogner v. California
Case #: 01-1757
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 06/26/2003
Subsequent History: Cross-cite: 156 L.Ed.2d 544

A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable statute of limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. The court invalidated California Penal Code section 803, subdivision (g), which permitted prosecution for child sexual abuse after expiration of the limitations period, if, among other things, the prosecution is begun within one year of a victim’s report to the…

View Full Summary
Name: Smith v. Doe
Case #: 01-729
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 03/05/2003
Subsequent History: 4/28/03: rehrg. den.; cross-cites: 123 S.Ct. 1925; 155 L.Ed.2d 844

The Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it is a civil, regulatory, non-punitive…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Rosenkrantz
Case #: S104701
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 12/16/2002
Subsequent History: Cert. den. 4/21/03

A Governor's decision granting or denying parole pursuant to his authority afforded by California Constitution Article V, section 8(b), which was added to the California Constitution in 1988, is subject to a limited judicial review to determine only whether the decision is supported by "some evidence." The Governor does not have complete discretion over parole matters, and his decision is to be based upon the same factors the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) is required to consider. The limited judicial review does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and ensures that parole decisions are supported by…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Oscar R.
Case #: F151004
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/12/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/27/02: S110830

Federal and state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws are not violated by the application of Proposition 21 (Welf. & Inst. Code, sec. 777) to probation violations occurring after its effective date, even though the crime for which probation was granted predated March 8, 2000. The juvenile court did not err in admitting reliable hearsay consisting of a probation officer’s report recounting statements by the victim Ivan that he had been harassed and threatened at school by the minor. There was good cause for Ivan’s unavailability on the ground that his presence would pose a risk of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zandrino
Case #: A095434
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/15/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/30/02.

In this opinion, the First DCA, Division 3, followed the opinion issued by its Division 5 in Stogner v. Superior Court [(2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 1229], and rejected the contrary holding in Lynch v. Superior Court [(1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1223], in holding that the provisions of Penal Code section 805.5 do not supercede the provisions of section 803(g). Therefore, the prosecution of a time-barred offense under section 803(g) is permissible even where the statute of limitations for the offense had expired as of January 1, 1985. Further, section 803(g) is not an ex post…

View Full Summary