legal news


Register | Forgot Password

People v. Johnson Part I

People v. Johnson Part I
06:14:2006

TO JUSTICES _____________


 


People v. Johnson

Filed 5/25/06


 


 


 


CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT







THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


                        v.


MICHAEL JOHNSON,


Defendant and Appellant.



F046939


(Super. Ct. No. CRF03104729)


OPINION


            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County.  Gerald F. Seiver, Patrick J. O'Hara and Paul A. Vortmann, Judges.


            Robert D. Bacon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson and Judy Kaida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


-ooOoo-


            Appellant Michael Johnson stands convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code,[1] §  288a, subd. (c)(2); counts 1-2) and one count of forcible rape (§  261, subd. (a)(2); count 3), all of which involved kidnapping the victim for purpose of committing the sexual offense (§  667.8, subd. (a)) and the use of a knife in commission of the offense (§  12022.3, subd. (a)).  Following a bifurcated court trial, appellant was further found to be a habitual sex offender (§  667.71); to have committed sexual offenses under aggravated circumstances (§  667.61, subds. (a), (d)); to have suffered three prior serious felony convictions (§  667, subd. (a)(1)) that were also strikes (§  1170.12); and to have served two prior prison terms (§  667.5, subd. (b)).  In addition, the court found that the statute of limitations had been extended (§  803, subd. (i) [see now, subd. (g)]).  Appellant was sentenced to determinate and indeterminate terms that totaled 256 years to life in prison.


            On appeal, appellant challenges admission of DNA evidence and various portions of his sentence.  In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that a â€





Description A "cold hit" from a DNA database where the suspect is first identified by a database search or "trawl" is not subject to the Kelly-Frye standard of admissibility when it is used merely to identify a possible suspect. Warrantless collection of blood samples and saliva from inmate convicted of sexual offense under aggravated circumstances for use in DNA database does not violate Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale