Robinson

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION. [*]

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

In this appeal we hold that the statute of limitations for a sexual offense is satisfied when the prosecution is commenced within the period of limitations by the filing of an arrest warrant predicated upon the identification of the perpetrator by a DNA profile. (See Pen.Code, § 804, subd. (d).) [1]

Defendant Paul Eugene Robinson was convicted by a jury of one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2) [2] ; Ct. 1), two counts of penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1); Cts. 2-3), and two counts of rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); Cts. 4-5). [3]

A criminal offense is within the statute of limitations when the prosecution for the offense is commenced within the applicable period of limitations. The "prosecution for an offense is commenced when ... [a]n arrest warrant ... is issued [and] names or describes the defendant with the same degree of particularity required for an indictment, information, or complaint." (§ 804, subd. (d).) The charging provisions permit the use of a fictitious or John Doe name. (See also § 815 [arrest warrant].) However, for constitutional and statutory reasons "a `John…