P. v. Graham
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to 15 sex offenses perpetrated against three victims. He agreed to a maximum sentence of eight years. The trial court ordered defendant to register as a sex offender under the mandatory requirement set forth in Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(A), and sentenced him to five years and eight months. It calculated the sentence as follows: three years for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16 (count 2, victim K. Doe); eight months consecutive for oral copulation with a minor (count 4, victim K. Doe); eight months consecutive for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger (count 9, victim E. Doe); eight months consecutive for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger (count 11, victim M. Doe); eight months consecutive for recording confidential communications (count 15, victim M. Doe).[2] It imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining counts. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object to the trial courts reason for imposing the consecutive sentence for count 15, (2) the sentences for counts 7 and 14 (using a minor to model in sexual conduct, victims K. Doe & M. Doe) and 15 constitute improper multiple punishment ( 654), and (3) the mandatory aspect of the order to register denied him equal protection of the law (People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (Hofsheier)). Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Graham