 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Salazar7/21/2005
Received for posting 08/24/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Rudy Torres Salazar was convicted after jury trial of the forcible rapes (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) of Tina Doe and Tiffany Doe, and the forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)) of Tina, the assault with the intent to commit a felony (§ 220) of Tina, and the sexual battery (§§ 242, 243.4, subd. (a)) of Tiffany. The jury also found true allegations that the offenses were committed against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)), and that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1170.12). The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the priors and sentenced defendant to 115 years to life, consecutive to a determinate term of five years. The court further ordered that defendant pay $1,500 in restitution to Tiffany.
Defendant contends on appeal that (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss or sever counts 1 through 3, as they occurred in San Diego; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's prior convictions under Evidence Code sections 1108 and 1101; (3) the trial court erred in admitting opinion testimony from a witness on a subject as to which the witness was not qualified as an expert; (4) the trial court erred in permitting a SART nurse to offer an expert opinion as to the causation of Tina's physical injuries; (5) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike one or both of defendant's prior strikes; and (6) the trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay $1,500 in victim restitution. We disagree with all of defendant's contentions, and therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by felony complaint with the forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1); count 1) of Tina, the forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); count 2) of Tiffany, and the sexual battery (§§ 242, 243.4, subd. (a); count 3) of Tiffany. The complaint further alleged in part that counts 2 and 3 were committed in Santa Clara County and that count 1 was committed in San Diego County against a different victim (§ 784.7). Defendant filed a demurrer to count 1 of the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense. The prosecutor filed opposition to the demurrer, attaching a letter from the office of the District Attorney of San Diego County agreeing to have the San Diego charges prosecuted in Santa Clara County. The trial court overruled the demurrer and defendant filed a petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandate in this court seeking review of the trial court's order. This court summarily denied the petition.
An amended information was filed charging defendant with the forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) of Tina (count 2) and of Tiffany (count 4), the forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)) of Tina (count 1), the assault with intent to commit a felony (§ 220) of Tina (count 3), and the sexual battery (§§ 242, 243.4, subd. (a)) of Tiffany (count 5). The information further alleged that counts 4 and 5 were committed in Santa Clara County and that the other offenses were committed in San Diego County (§ 784.7), that the offenses were committed against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)), and that defendant had two prior strikes (§ 1170.12), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|