Whitfield

People v. Whitfield

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 4th 1652·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1106·24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 210·93 Daily Journal DAR 14058·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8284
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 1993C013020California3,073 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

In thepublished portion of this opinion, we shall hold that the filing of an information tolls the period of limitations as to lesser related offenses which are based on the “same conduct” (Pen. Code, § 803, subd. (b)) as that which underlies the charged offense.

Defendant was charged with a variety of sexual offenses committed against Margaret T. and Adonica H. A jury convicted him of 33 counts charging sexual offenses, including forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)), forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), forcible sodomy (Pen. Code, § 286), and penetration of genital or anal opening with a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289). The jury found defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of one of the sex offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.3, subd. (a)) and acted in concert in respect to several of the others (Pen. Code, §§ 288a, subd. (d), 264.1). In addition, the jury convicted defendant of one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; further statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Penal Code).

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 282 years. He appeals contending the trial court…

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.