legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Carter
A jury convicted defendant Richard Junius Carter on 10 counts charging various sex offenses committed over a number of years against three minor girls. (Pen. Code, 261.5, subd. (c)counts 2, 9, 11; 261.5, subd. (d)count 7; 288, subd. (a) count 4; 288, subd. (c)(1)count 6; 288.2, subd. (a) count 10; 288.5, subd. (a)count 3; 289, subd. (h) count 1; 289, subd. (j)count 5; unspecified section references that follow are to the Penal Code.) The jury acquitted defendant of one charged sex offense ( 289, subd. (i)--count 8), but found true allegations that defendant used obscene material in committing counts 3 and 4 ( 1203.066, subd. (a)(9)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of 20 years 4 months.
On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the court erroneously admitted evidence of uncharged acts; (2) CALJIC No. 2.21.2 (Witness Willfully False) unconstitutionally lessens the prosecutors burden of proof; (3) cumulative error compels reversal, (4) prosecution on count 7, charging a violation of section 261.5, subdivision (d), was time-barred; (5) the court exceeded its authority in ordering defendant not to have any contact with the victims; and (6) the court violated principles enunciated in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham) in imposing the upper term on count 3. Court reverse defendants conviction on count 7 and strike the no contact/no visitation order. In all other respects, Court affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

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

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale