White

People v. White

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 473·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1611·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12331·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 848·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9061
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2005B166502California5,551 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

Appellant Keith L. White appeals from his conviction on charges of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation by future threats, and robbery. In his original appeal, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of oral copulation through threat of future injury. We sent a letter to counsel asking them to address whether the 1998 changes in Penal Code section 288a, which separated the various methods of committing forcible oral copulation into different subdivisions, were intended by the Legislature to be technical and not substantive. While the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 ] (Blakely). Accordingly, we granted leave to file supplemental briefing on sentencing issues raised by Blakely . Finally, in August of this year, appellant sought, and we granted permission, to file a second supplemental brief seeking review of purported nunc pro tunc orders issued by the trial court after notice of appeal was filed. The effect of the orders was to substantially increase appellant’s sentence on the robbery charge by increasing the…

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.