Bautista

People v. Bautista

Bad Law
129 Cal. App. 4th 1431·29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 272·5 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4938
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 2005A105375, A106495California2,510 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

Introduction

Pursuant to her plea of no contest, Romelita Bautista (Bautista) was convicted of one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child, six counts of procurement regarding two children under 16 years of age for lewd and lascivious acts, and one count of a lewd or lascivious act with a child. She alleges that her conviction of one count of procurement was barred by the statute of limitations, and that she could not be convicted of both continuous sexual abuse and procurement of the same child during the same time period. Bautista also filed a petition for writ of mandate based on claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, which we consider with her appeal.

We agree that one of the counts of procurement (count 2), is barred by the statute of limitations, and reverse that conviction. We also agree that Bautista was erroneously convicted of both continuous sexual abuse of a child and procurement of the same child during the same time period, and reverse her procurement convictions in counts 3, 4, 5 and 6.

II.

Procedural Background

The Alameda County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Bautista with continuous sexual abuse of her daughter C., a child…

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.