 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hennagir1/13/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendant and appellant Raymond Hennagir appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of failing to update annually his sex offender registration and failing to file a change of address (Pen. Code, § 290, subds. (a)(1)(D); (f)(1)). He admitted a prior rape conviction, which qualified him for sentencing under the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667 subd. (b)-(i); 1170.12). The trial court refused to strike the prior conviction and imposed an aggregate state prison sentence of four years. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to strike his prior conviction and erred in charging the jury with CALJIC No. 17.41.1. We affirm.
Appellant was born February 10, 1947, making him 54 years old when he was arrested on November 11, 2001. On that date he was living in a trailer at a construction site in San Dimas, California. As a convicted sex offender, appellant had registered with the Ontario Police Department on April 24, 2000. He subsequently moved to Yuma, Arizona. In late 2000 or early 2001, he returned to California and resided in the San Dimas trailer. Appellant did not contact the Ontario and San Dimas police departments to change his address or to reregister as a sex offender. After his arrest, appellant admitted knowing he was required to update his address and registration since April 2000, but failed to so inform police because he "was embarrassed and it was a fucking hassle." Appellant also said "he was looking for work and this slipped his mind."
In 1978 appellant was convicted of rape of an intoxicated victim and, as a result, was admitted to Patton State Mental Hospital, from which he escaped the same year. In 1979 he was convicted of driving under the influence and resisting arrest. The court granted him probation. In 1980 appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, for which he received 20 days of confinement and 36 months of probation. In 1992 appellant was arrested in Washington state as a fugitive, extradited to California where he was sentenced to three years in state prison. Appellant was paroled in 1994 and discharged from parole in 1995. Since that time, he moved frequently to search for employment. In 1999 he was convicted of driving on a suspended license. His criminal history also showed some escapes and failures to appear.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued that based on appellant's age, the age of his rape conviction, and his relatively minor criminal history, appellant's 1978 rape conviction should be stricken. The court declined to strike the prior rape conviction and sentenced appellant consecutively to the lower term of 16 months doubled (or 32 months), for failing to update his sex offender registration, and to one - third the middle term doubled (or 16 months), for failing to file a change of address.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike appellant's prior rape conviction. Appellant's reliance on People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991 is misplaced. In Cluff, the defendant violated Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(D) by neglecting annually to confirm his address had not changed. The record suggested the defendant had not intended to deceive or evade law enforcement. When police officers looked for him, they found the defendant at his registered addre
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|