Tate

People v. Tate

Good Law
164 Cal. App. 3d 133·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1584·210 Cal. Rptr. 117
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 1985F003647California2,347 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

Part I

The People appeal from an order granting probation, contending the trial court erred in refusing to require the defendant, Alfred Tate, Jr., to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. We will direct that the order be modified to require the defendant to register.

Defendant was initially charged with a violation of section 288, subdivision (a) (lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 years). Enhancements based upon the child being under the age of 11 years, to wit, 7 years (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and defendant occupying a position of special trust (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(9)) were alleged. He pled not guilty. Later, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor violation of section 647a (annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18 years). The court granted probation and ordered the defendant not be required to register under section 290.

Before filing a complaint a social worker interviewed the victim for over an hour. She related a course of sexual conduct lasting over a period of months wherein appellant placed his finger in her vagina, culminating in the event referred to herein. With regard to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.