P. v. Barkley 1/12/10 CA6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: H032690

Case Date: 04/22/2010

Preview:Filed 1/12/10 P. v. Barkley CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER BARKLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

H032690 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. CC757145, CC644740)

A jury convicted defendant Christopher Barkley of oral copulation with a minor under 16 (count 1), lewd or lascivious acts on a child 14 or 15 (count 2), and five counts of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor by an adult (counts 5-10). It also found true allegations that the minors were four years younger than defendant for purposes of one-, two-, or three-year sentence enhancements. The trial court then found that a prior prison-term conviction suffered and admitted by defendant constituted a strike for purposes of the Three Strikes law over defendants objection that the prior did not amount to a strike because it was a misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years and four months consisting of a 12-year midterm (six years doubled under Three Strikes law) for count 5 plus a two-year enhancement, 16 months consecutive (one-third midterm doubled) for count 1, four years consecutive (one-third midterm doubled) each for counts 6, 7, and 9 plus eight-month enhancements for each, and a one-year term for the prior-prison-term finding. It imposed concurrent terms for counts 2 (four-year midterm), 8 (12-year midterm), and 10 (12-year midterm).

On appeal, defendant (1) asks that we review the sex-offense victims confidential records that the juvenile and trial court declined to disclose in order to determine whether they were material and should have been disclosed, (2) contends that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that the sex-offense victim had once falsely accused another of sexual assault, (3) argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence and instructing the jury (CALCRIM No. 1193) about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), (4) urges that he suffered improper multiple convictions (counts 6, 7, & 10) and improper multiple punishments (counts 1, 2, 6, 7 & 10) (Pen. Code,

Download P. v. Barkley 1/12/10 CA6.pdf