Jimenez

People v. Jimenez

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 329·2000 Daily Journal DAR 4385·80 Cal. App. 4th 286·94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 884·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3275
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 2000No. F029571California1,627 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Buckley, J.

Defendant Rudy Jimenez was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of violating subdivision (a)(3) of Penal Code section 269 1 and of violating section 288, subdivision (a) (forcible sodomy with a person under the age of 14 and more than 10 years younger than the accused, and lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 15 years to life imprisonment for the sodomy counts; a concurrent six-year term was imposed for the section 288 offense.

Defendant argues that the sentencing court erred by concluding as a matter of law that it was required to sentence him to serve the terms imposed for the sodomy counts consecutively pursuant to section 667.6, subdivision (d). He is wrong. Section 667.6 applies to section 269 convictions where the defendant has also been convicted of multiple offenses or the crimes involve multiple victims. We also reject defendant’s characterization of section 269 as an alternative sentencing scheme. The two statutes serve different objectives and are cumulative, not alternative, to each other. Accordingly, we will affirm.

Facts

Defendant ran a residential reform ministry in his home. In…

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.