Valentine

Appellant, Randy Alan Valentine (Valentine), was convicted following jury trial of 21 counts of sex offenses against two young victims, N. C. and V. R. Valentine was thereafter sentenced to a total term of 81 years and four months in state prison and given a $15,000 fine. This appeal followed and raised the issue whether threatened “hardship” remains a form of “duress” justifying convictions for forcible oral copulation and forcible penetration by a foreign object. In our initial opinion in this case we concluded it does not and reversed the convictions for those offenses, a decision unaffected by Supreme Court review. Nonetheless, we amplify our initial opinion in this issue to take account of intervening decisions from other Courts of Appeal.

Our initial decision also held appellate courts ordinarily should not correct a prosecutor’s failure to request a parole revocation fine in the trial court. The Supreme Court granted review limited to the latter issue—the parole revocation fine. After deciding People v. Smith, the Supreme Court remanded this case with an instruction we reconsider in light of that opinion. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith we…

I concur in the judgment only. The majority's analysis of legislative intent pertaining to the issue of whether "hardship" was intentionally eliminated from the term "menace" for purposes of Penal Code sections 288 and 289 is debatable, in my view. The majority's analysis on the issue is very close to engaging in judicial legislation. The Legislature may very well have had good reason to retain "threat of hardship" as inclusive in the term "menace" under the aforementioned Penal Code sections. I am willing, however, to engage in speculation with the majority as an act of legitimate statutory interpretation that the term was intended to be dropped by the Legislature, but I am uncomfortable in doing so. I respectfully invite the Legislature to revisit this issue at an early date for possible remedial legislation if the majority opinion indeed countermands the original intention of the Legislature. *Page 1256

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1243 Appellant, Randy Alan Valentine (Valentine) was convicted following jury trial of 21 counts 1 of sex offenses against two young victims, N.C. and V. R. Valentine was thereafter sentenced to a total term of 81 years and four months in state prison and given a $15,000 fine. This appeal followed and raised the issue whether threatened "hardship" remains a form of "duress" justifying convictions for forcible oral copulation and forcible penetration by a foreign object. In our initial opinion in this case we concluded it does not and reversed the convictions for those offenses, a decision unaffected by Supreme Court review. Nonetheless, we amplify our initial opinion in this issue to take account of intervening decisions from other courts of appeal. Our initial decision also held appellate courts ordinarily should not correct a prosecutor's failure to request a parole revocation fine in the trial court. The Supreme Court granted review limited to the latter issue — the parole revocation fine. After deciding People v. Smith , 2 the Supreme Court…