Bautista

People v. Bautista

Good Law
63 Cal. App. 4th 865
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 1998F026872California2,169 words

Opinion

Opinion

STONE (W.A.), J.

Antonio Bautista was charged with kidnapping with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, [1] §§ 207, subd. (a), 208, former subd. (d)), and assault with intent to commit rape. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he entered a plea of no contest to a lesser charge of false imprisonment. (§ 236.) As a condition of probation the court ordered Bautista to register as a sex offender. He claims the case must be remanded for resentencing because the court failed to state the reasons for requiring sex offender registration as required by section 290, subdivision (a)(2)(E). We will find the issue is not preserved for appeal and in any event the defect is harmless.

On the night of July 18, 1996, Bautista, his brother Sergio and cousin, Javier, forced a 15-year-old alleged transvestite into a laundry room where Javier attempted to convince the boy to have sex. Bautista and Sergio waited outside. Javier told the boy he would not leave the laundry room until they had sex. In an effort to create an opportunity to escape, the boy eventually agreed to have sex with Javier, but suggested they go somewhere other than the laundry room. Bautista assisted Sergio and Javier in pulling…

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.