Vasquez

People v. Vasquez

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 501·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 706·2004 Daily Journal DAR 5549·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4005
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 11, 2004B170326California1,640 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

Introduction

On December 31, 2002, the People filed an information charging respondents Jose Vasquez and Rosie Canas with multiple counts of sexual offenses all of which have a six-year statute of limitations period set by Penal Code section 800. The crimes were alleged to have to have taken place in 1992, 1993 and 1994. The People filed the information pursuant to section 803, subdivision (g) which permits such a filing after the limitations period in section 800 or 801 has expired as long as the filing occurs within one year from the date the victim first reports the crimes to a law enforcement agency. The victim first reported the crime in August 2002.

The trial court determined that the information was time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations in section 800, and that section 803, subdivision (g) was invalid when applied to extend the statute of limitations for sexual offenses. The trial court concluded that section 803, subdivision (g) was a revival statute condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607 [ 156 L.Ed.2d 544 , 123 S.Ct. 2446 ],

We disagree with the trial court. Section 803, subdivision (g) is not a revival…

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.