P. v. Egland
After a court trial, defendant and appellant Rubin F. Egland (defendant) was convicted of kidnapping to commit rape (Pen. Code, 209, subd. (b)(1))[1](count 1); forcible rape ( 261, subd. (a)(2)) (count 2); and genital and anal penetration by a foreign object ( 289, subd. (a)) (count 3). The trial court found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) in the commission of counts 1 and 3 and that he used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.3, subdivision (a) in the commission of counts 2 and 3. The trial court also found that the circumstances of the crime satisfied the requirements of section 667.61, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (e).
The trial court employed the one-strike sentencing scheme pursuant to section 667.61, subdivisions (f) and (g) and sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in count 3. The trial court stayed a life sentence in count 1 pursuant to section 654. The trial court imposed a determinate term of 11 years in count 2, which consisted of the midterm of six years and a five year enhancement pursuant to section 12022.3, subdivision (a). The trial court ordered the sentences in counts 2 and 3 to be served consecutively pursuant to section 667.6.
Defendant appeals on the grounds that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction where the prosecution expert testimony and DNA evidence were contradictory; (2) the trial court applied an erroneous standard in ruling on defendants section 1118 motion for acquittal, and the failure to apply a beyond a reasonable doubt standard was structural error requiring automatic reversal; (3) the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce so-called rebuttal testimony that could have and should have been presented during the prosecutions case-in-chief, that went beyond the scope of rebuttal, and that constituted prosecutorial misconduct and denied defendant his right to due process; (4) the trial court imposed an unauthorized life sentence as punishment for defendants conviction of kidnap for rape in violation of section 209, subdivision (b)(1), and the sentence violated ex post facto proscriptions and due process guarantees; (5) imposition of a five year sentence for the section 12022.3 enhancement was unauthorized because that section does not provide for such a sentence; and (6) the abstract of judgment contains a clerical error, does not reflect the oral pronouncement of the trial court, and requires correction to strike reference to section 12022.53, which did not exist at the time of the offense.
Comments on P. v. Egland
The system is so fucked up. It clearly stated the evidence isn't sufficient enough. My dad has been incarcerated my entire 18, soon to be 19 years of living. I just want to wish him a happy fathers day & God has you Dad love you.