P. v. Smith 6/18/02 CA2/7

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2002 » P. v. Smith 6/18/02 CA2/7

State: California

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

Docket No: B146786

Case Date: 09/19/2002

Preview:Filed 6/18/02

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID WOODROW SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. B146786 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA045392)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Arthur Jean, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Ankcorn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marc J. Nolan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Steven Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

Appellant, David Woodrow Smith ("Smith"), appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of a failure to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290, subdivision (g)(2).1 By way of special allegations, the information charged Smith with two prior convictions under sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d) and the service of two prior prison terms under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Smith pled not guilty and denied the special allegations. Smith subsequently admitted the prior enhancement allegations. The court exercised its discretion and struck one prior conviction and the two prior prison enhancements. The court sentenced Smith to a five-year prison term and gave Smith credit for 372 days. Smith makes four contentions on appeal as follows: 1. "The trial court improperly instructed the jury that appellant had an obligation to make certain the Long Beach Police Department received written notification of his change of address;" 2. "Appellant was not required to notify the authorities in California of his move from Colorado to New York because section 290 only applies to persons residing in California;" 3. "California lacked jurisdiction to punish appellant for his failure to notify the authorities upon leaving the state because his offense was committed entirely outside of California;" 4. "The prosecutor's failure to object to the trial court's silence at sentencing on the question of imposing a restitution and parole revocation fine amounts to a waiver of the issue on appeal, and the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence." For the reasons hereafter stated, we find no merit to Smith's contentions and affirm the judgment.

1

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS Prosecution's case. On September 20, 1997, Smith registered with the Long Beach Police Department as a sex offender and listed his residence address as 4596 North Banner Drive, apartment number 4, Long Beach, California, and listed the same address on his annual update2 on October 19, 1998. At the time of his annual update Smith was told to notify the Long Beach Police Department within 10 days of moving out of state, either orally or in writing. Smith was required to renew his registration within 5 working days of his birthday, which was on September 25, 1999, but failed to do so but was permitted to file a late registration. An attempt was made to contact Smith on January 5, 2000, by Officer Robert Smith at the behest of Detective James Newland of the Long Beach Police Department. Upon arriving at Smith's Banner Drive address, Officer Smith found the front door of the apartment open, the premises vacated and maintenance being performed by the apartment manager and another man. Officer Smith found none of Smith's property in the apartment and Smith left no forwarding address.

Section 290 provides in relevant part: "Every person described in paragraph (2), for the rest of his or her life while residing in, or, if he or she has no residence, while located within California, or while attending school or working in California, as described in subparagraph (G), shall be required to register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she is residing, or if he or she has no residence, is located, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is residing, or if he or she has no residence, is located, in an unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and, additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or community college if he or she is residing, or if he or she has no residence, is located upon the campus or in any of its facilities, within five working days of coming into, or changing his or her residence or location within, any city, county, or city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily resides, or, if he or she has no residence, is located." (Pen. Code,

Download P. v. Smith 6/18/02 CA2/7.pdf