Vigil

People v. Vigil

Good Law
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 331·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 3110·2001 Daily Journal DAR 12883·94 Cal. App. 4th 485·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10342
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 11, 2001H018367California9,191 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Defendant was convicted by jury trial of violating the sex offender registration statute (Pen. Code, former § 290, subd. (f)) by failing to notify law enforcement that he had changed his residence address. The jury also found true allegations that defendant had suffered four prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) to (i) and 1170.12. Defendant admitted an on-bail enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) allegation. He was committed to state prison for a term of 25 years to life for the substantive offense and given a two-year term for the on-bail enhancement. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to give sua sponte instructions to the jury that the “addition of a second address” did not trigger the duty to notify law enforcement, (3) the trial court’s mens rea instructions were prejudicially erroneous, (4) the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct on mistake of fact, (5) the statutory provision requiring a sex offender to notify law enforcement when he changes his residence address is unconstitutionally vague as…

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.