P. v. Alcala
Filed 7/31/06 P. v. Alcala 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Siskiyou)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEL ALCALA, Defendant and Appellant. |
C037000
(Super. Ct. No. SCCRF991730)
|
Defendant Joel Alcala was charged with committing unlawful sex acts with four minor females. A jury convicted him of oral copulation involving one girl (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(1)), acquitted him of the charge of sexual battery against another girl, and was unable to reach verdicts on the charges of oral copulation involving a third girl and sexual battery against the fourth girl. Defendant was granted probation on various conditions, including that he serve 150 days in custody and register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. (Further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.)
In an opinion filed on May 27, 2004, we rejected defendant's claim that the order requiring him to register as a sex offender for committing oral copulation with a minor unconstitutionally deprives him of equal protection of laws because there is no such mandatory registration requirement for the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. We also rejected his contention that the sex offender registration requirement constitutes cruel or unusual punishment as applied to him.
The California Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action in this cause pending that court's decision in another case. (People v. Hofsheier (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 438, review granted June 9, 2004, S124636.)
The California Supreme Court filed its opinion in People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (hereafter Hofsheier)) on March 6, 2006. Vincent Hofsheier, like defendant in this case, was convicted of oral copulation with a girl between the ages of 16 and 18, and was required to register as a sex offender. (Id. at p. 1192.) Like defendant, Hofsheier asserted on appeal that â€
