P. v. Barghoorn
Filed 5/31/06 P. v. Barghoorn CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Amador)
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID BARGHOORN, Defendant and Appellant. | C047562
(Super. Ct. No. 02CR2274)
|
Defendant David Barghoorn appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of committing a forcible lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 1 and 2)[1] and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years. (§ 288.5, subd. (a); count 3.) The court found true two prior conviction allegations (§ 667.71, 667, subd. (a)(1) and (b) - (i)) and sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 85 years to life.
On appeal, he contends the trial court erroneously gave conflicting unanimity jury instructions; section 803, subdivision (g), which extends the applicable statute of limitations, violates the ex post facto clause; the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exclude or limit evidence of prior sexual misconduct; and Evidence Code section 1108 violates due process.
We find no error and shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Counts 1 and 2.
A. was born in April 1990 and lived in Ione with her mother and stepfather. She knew defendant because he was her stepfather's childhood friend and â€
