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.

People v. Medelez

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

August 17, 2016

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANGEL ANTONIO MEDELEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

         [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]

         Superior Court County of Santa Barbara No. 1446024 Frank J. Ochoa, Jr., Judge.

Page 660

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 661

         COUNSEL

         Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Kamala 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.

         OPINION

         TANGEMAN, J.

         Angel Antonio Medelez contacted a minor with intent to engage in oral sex (Pen. Code, [1] § 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.

         Medelez 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)).

         We stay the four-month sentence for attempted oral copulation (§ 664), correct the abstract of judgment to delete a dismissed count, and otherwise affirm.

         In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we consider and reject Medelez’s contention that all his convictions must be reversed because the trial court dismissed a ...


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.