Andreotti

People v. Andreotti

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 462·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 689·2001 Daily Journal DAR 9381·91 Cal. App. 4th 1263·1 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7653
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2001No. C034072California4,386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrison, J.

May a trial court defer entry of judgment for a child molester, absent the People’s consent? No. Contrary to defendant’s view, a statute precluding judges from doing so does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.

The People charged defendant with eight counts of child molestation, alleging substantial sexual conduct as to one count. (Pen. Code, §§288, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (a)(8); further section references are to this code.) He pleaded not guilty and asked for deferred entry of judgment, which the *1266 People opposed. The trial court found defendant was eligible for deferral and was a suitable candidate, but that the court had no power to grant the request. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count and no contest to a second count, and admitted substantial sexual conduct. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted probation, and issued a certificate of probable cause. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

The Penal Code provides for pretrial diversion or deferred entry of judgment for a number of types of offenders. (E.g., §§ 1000 [certain drug offenses], 1000.12 [child abuse and neglect], 1001.60 [bad check diversion].) Generally, a case which is…

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.