People v. De Porceri

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 106 Cal. App. 4th 60, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1515, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 185
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 13, 2003
DocketH023851
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 (People v. De Porceri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. De Porceri, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 106 Cal. App. 4th 60, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1515, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

*63 Opinion

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J.

The only issue presented by this appeal is whether a prior conviction of assault with intent to commit lewd touching (Pen. Code, § 220) 1 qualifies as a strike under the three strikes statutes. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea, defendant Stefan de Porceri pleaded no contest to four felony counts of lewd touching of minors under the age of 14 years (counts 1-4; § 288, subd. (a)) 2 and two misdemeanor counts of annoying or molesting children under the age of 18 years (counts 5-6; § 647.6, subd. (a)). He also admitted a prior felony conviction of “Assault with intent to commit 288 PC (child molest), Penal Code section 220.”

Defendant submitted to the court whether this prior conviction qualified as a prior strike within the meaning of the three strikes statutes, sections 667 and 1170.12. The effect of a prior qualifying as a strike is to double a defendant’s sentence. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) Defendant agreed that his maximum sentence would be 28 years and his minimum would be 18 years with this strike. Without this strike his maximum sentence would be 14 years.

After the court determined that the prior conviction was a strike, the court denied defendant’s request to strike the strike and sentenced defendant, then age 52, to prison for 18 years, consisting of the lower term of three years on count 1, plus three consecutive two-year terms, one-third the midterm, for counts 2 through 4. These terms were doubled due to the prior strike. Defendant also received 90-day concurrent sentences for each of his two misdemeanor convictions.

1. Lists of Serious and Violent Felonies

On appeal defendant contends that a prior conviction of assault with intent to violate section 288 does not qualify as a strike because it is neither a violent nor a serious felony.

A prior felony conviction qualifies as a strike if it is “Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined *64 in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state.” (§§ 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1).) Both referenced statutes contain lists of felonies.

On March 8, 2000, the serious felony list in section 1192.7, subdivision (c) 3 included 41 items set out below. 4 This date is important because it was when Proposition 21 amended this subdivision to add new serious felonies and also enacted section 1170.125, which states: “Notwithstanding Section 2 *65 of Proposition 184, as adopted at the November 8, 1994 General Election, for all offenses committed on or after the effective date of this act, all references to existing statutes in Section 1170.12 are to those statutes as they existed on the effective date of this act, including amendments made to those statutes by this act.” The effect of section 1170.125 is to change the “lock-in” date of statutory references in section 1170.12 from June 30, 1993, to March 8, 2000. (Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537, 574-575 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3].) In other words, Proposition 21 updated the serious felony list for three strikes purposes. 5

On March 8, 2000, the violent felony list in section 667.5, subdivision (c) included 22 items set out below. 6 Proposition 21 also amended this statute to *66 add new violent felonies and enacted section 667.1, which states: “Notwithstanding subdivision (h) of Section 667, for all offenses committed on or after the effective date of this act, all references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, of Section 667, are to those statutes as they existed on the effective date of this act, including amendments made to those statutes by this act.” Proposition 21 also updated the violent felony list for three strikes purposes. 7

The serious felony list includes every violent felony as well as other felonies. For example, “(6) Lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years as *67 defined in Section 288” is a violent felony (§ 667.5, subd. (c)), while a “(6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years” is a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)). Also, “(15) Assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220” is a violent felony (§ 667.5, subd. (c)), while “(29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220” is a serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c).)

2. Was Defendant’s Prior Crime an Attempt to Commit a Serious Felony?

Defendant’s prior crime was a violation of section 220, specifically assault with intent to violate section 288. Section 220 defines as a crime: “Every person who assaults another with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of Section 264.1, 288 or 289.”

The lists of serious or violent felonies do not include either “assault with intent to violate section 288” or “any violation of section 220.” However, the serious felony list does include “(39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than assault.” The Attorney General asserts that this item 39 includes defendant’s prior crime.

We note that “any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault” has been on the serious felony list since section 1192.7 was enacted in 1982 by Proposition 8. (Cf. People v. Equarte (1986) 42 Cal.3d 456, 461, fn. 5 [229 Cal.Rptr. 116, 722 P.2d 890] (Equarte).) It was on the serious felony list on June 30, 1993. (See fn. 5, ante, p. 65.)

Though an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime (§§ 664, 21a), defendant does not argue that item 39 is limited to convictions of attempt. It has long been established that the serious felony list describes criminal conduct as well as specific crimes. (Equarte, supra, 42 Cal.3d 456, 463-464; People v. Johnson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1541, 1546 [285 Cal.Rptr. 394]; People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 145 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 387, 19 P.3d 1129] (Murphy).)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Briseno CA2/4
California Court of Appeal, 2021
Jones v. Superior Court of Nevada County
246 Cal. App. 4th 390 (California Court of Appeal, 2016)
People v. Mazyck CA2/3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Jernigan
227 Cal. App. 4th 1198 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)
People v. Sanchez CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Tower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles
224 Cal. App. 4th 262 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)
Harris v. Brown
338 F. App'x 660 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 106 Cal. App. 4th 60, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1515, 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-de-porceri-calctapp-2003.