People v. Ingram CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 2014E058021California5,275 words

Opinion

Opinion

I.

FACTS

In the information, the People alleged defendant was required to register as a sex

offender under section 290, and alleged he failed to inform the Moreno Valley Police

Department (MVPD), with whom he was registered, within five working days of moving

to a new address in another law enforcement agency’s jurisdiction. (§ 290.013,

subd. (a).) The People also alleged defendant suffered four prior strike convictions for

3 serious and violent felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (c) and

(e)(2)(A), and section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(A), as follows: (1) on November 20,

1984, defendant suffered a conviction for one count of rape (§ 261, subd. (a)); (2) on

November 20, 1984, defendant suffered a conviction for one count of oral copulation

(§ 288a, subd. (d)); (3) on November 20, 1984, defendant suffered a conviction for a

second count of oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (d)); and (4) on December 1, 1993,

defendant suffered a conviction for one count of oral copulation (§ 288, subd. (d)).

At trial, defendant stipulated he was required to register for life as a sex offender

based on a prior conviction, and stipulated he knew he was required to…

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.