Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Ronald Marion Guest

August 22, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
RONALD MARION GUEST, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. NCR77537)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.

P. v. Guest

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

A jury convicted defendant Ronald Marion Guest of indecent exposure. (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1.)*fn1 In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true allegations that he had suffered a 1994 lewd conduct conviction (§§ 288, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant was sentenced to state prison for eight years, consisting of six years (twice the upper term) for the offense plus two years for prior prison terms. He was awarded 354 days' custody credit and 212 days' conduct credit and was ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $600 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $1,830 sex crime fine (§ 290.3, subd. (a)) including penalty assessments, and a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8).*fn2

FACTS

On November 17, 2008, at approximately 12:30 p.m., defendant walked naked in the second row of an olive orchard outside the City of Corning. The walk covered approximately 20 yards and lasted 45 seconds to one minute. During the walk, defendant had an unobstructed view of patrons, including women and children, at a safety rest stop on an interstate highway. As he walked, defendant looked toward the people at the rest stop and approached to within 10 to 15 yards of them.

Jeffrey Cook, a rest stop maintenance worker, observed defendant walking in the olive orchard. Cook watched defendant from a distance of about 30 yards. Cook then walked toward defendant as he continued walking. Defendant looked at Cook, who was talking on his cellular telephone. After looking at Cook, defendant first crouched down and then ran away.

The next day, Garret Fry drove to a field across from his residence. His truck headlights illuminated a person, crouching down in the field, whom Fry later identified as defendant. Fry approached defendant, who ran off and climbed over a fence. Viewing defendant from behind, Fry noticed that defendant was wearing only a shirt and shoes.

Fry contacted the sheriff's office. In response, a deputy went to defendant's residence and observed him in a nearby pasture. Defendant fled from the deputy who later found him hiding in some bushes. Defendant, now dressed in a jacket and boxer shorts, was arrested. A search of the jacket yielded petroleum jelly, a flashlight, and a nine-and-one-half inch vibrating replica penis.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.

Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and asserting various other claims. We first ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.