California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]
Court County of Santa Barbara No. 1446024 Frank J. Ochoa,
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Wildman,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Antonio Medelez contacted a minor with intent to engage in
oral sex (Pen. Code,  § 288.3, “luring”),
and then took a direct but ineffectual act toward his goal
(§§ 664, 288a, subd. (b)(1),
“attempt”). Here we decide he may be convicted of
both crimes because luring is not a special statute intended
to preclude prosecution for attempt, and neither crime is the
lesser included offense of the other.
appeals judgment after conviction by jury of three sex
offenses against his adult roommate and two sex offenses
against a minor. (§§ 288a, subds. (f) & (i),
243.4, subd. (e)(1), 288.3, subd. (a), 664, 288a, subd.
(b)(1).) The trial court sentenced Medelez to six years eight
months in prison, including two consecutive sentences of four
months each for attempt to orally copulate a minor
(§§ 664, 288a, subd. (b)(1)) and luring the minor
with intent to orally copulate (§ 288.3, subd. (a)).
the four-month sentence for attempted oral copulation (§
664), correct the abstract of judgment to delete a dismissed
count, and otherwise affirm.
unpublished portion of the opinion, we consider and reject
Medelez’s contention that all his convictions must be
reversed because the trial court dismissed a ...