P. v. Pittman
Filed 4/28/06 P. v. Pittman CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD SIMEON PITTMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B178292 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA053676) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard R. Romero, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.
Stephen Temko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and G. Tracey Letteau, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
Edward Simeon Pittman appeals from the judgment entered following his convictions by jury on 10 counts of lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1-8, 10, and 13),[1] 2 counts of attempted lewd act upon a child (§§ 664, 288, subd. (a); counts 9 and 11), and count 12 - child molesting with an admission he suffered a prior conviction for that offense (§ 647.6, subds. (a), (c)), with findings as to counts 1 through 8, 10, and 13 that he committed such an offense against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (c)(7) & (e)(5)). The court sentenced him to prison for four consecutive life terms plus 14 years 8 months.
In this case, we accept respondent's concession that the statute of limitations barred prosecution of appellant on counts 9, 11, and 12. Appellant's claim that the trial court's giving of CALJIC No. 2.50.01 to the jury violated his right to due process is unavailing since he waived the issue and, in any event, the giving of the instruction did not violate his right to due process.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence, the sufficiency of which is undisputed, established that appellant committed the above offenses. As to counts 9, 11, and 12, in particular, that evidence established as follows. In â€
