(Super. Ct. No. CRF 09-283)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In this appeal, defendant Marcus Charles Hagins contends the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by sentencing him to multiple punishments for what was an indivisible course of conduct. He also claims the court violated his constitutional right to a jury trial by requiring him to register as a sex offender and abide by concomitant residency restrictions based on facts that were not found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. We disagree with his contentions and affirm the judgment.*fn1
19-year-old Lindsey W. awoke early on May 15, 2009, to find a man, defendant, putting tape over her mouth. Defendant told her he would slit her throat if she said a word. He also put tape over her eyes.
Defendant next told Lindsey to roll over onto her stomach. He threatened to kill everyone in the house if she did not follow his orders. He held a sharp blade to her throat.
Defendant taped Lindsey's hands together behind her back. He also taped her ankles together. He turned her head onto its side and warned her again not to speak.
Defendant then removed the tape from Lindsey's mouth. He told her to open her mouth, but she refused. Defendant pried her mouth open with his hand, and he inserted a ball gag. At about that time, Lindsey's mother kicked open the bedroom door, and defendant fled out of the house.
Defendant's fingerprints were found on Lindsey's bedroom doorknob and on some of the duct tape found at the scene. While being fingerprinted at his arrest, defendant physically resisted the procedure.
Experts searching defendant's computer found images involving ball gags. The images, depicting young women including Lindsey and other acquaintances of defendant, had been altered by a graphics program to depict the women with ball gags in their mouths and bindings around their hands and feet.
The experts also found commercial bondage pornography on defendant's computer. One expert found over 8,000 commercial bondage pornographic images. A commercial bondage video found on the computer was played for the jury.
A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); making a terrorist threat (§ 422); and false imprisonment by threat or violence (§§ 236, 237). It acquitted defendant of assault with the intent to ...