Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 06-28-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: E075532
Judge: Miller
Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division (Los Angeles County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Charles C. Ragland and Alana Cohen Bulter
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Los Angeles, California criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with forced oral copulation, false imprisonment, first-degree burglary and robbery in concert inside an inhabited dwelling.
There was little dispute regarding the facts that (A) defendant was a gang member; (B) defendant was in the victim's house on July 25, 2015; (C) defendant engaged in intercourse with the victim; (D) the victim orally copulated defendant; (E) defendant's associates in the gang stole the victim's television while defendant and the victim were engaged in intercourse; (F) defendant stopped engaging in intercourse with the victim when her house alarm sounded a warning chirp due to one of defendant's associates opening a door; and (G) defendant and his gang associates sold the victim's television, laptop, and cell phone on July 25, 2015.
The primary disputes in this case pertained to (1) whether the victim knew defendant prior to July 25, 2015; (2) whether the victim had knowledge of the Sex Cash Money street gang prior to July 25, 2015; (3) whether the victim invited defendant to her house; (4) whether the victim consented to intercourse and oral copulation with defendant; and (5) whether defendant stole the victim's laptop and cell phone.
People v. Clark (Cal. App. 2022)
Outcome: "The trial court is directed to amend the indeterminate abstract of judgment to reflect the statute in Count 5 is Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c)(2)(A), and send the amended abstract of judgment to the appropriate agency/agencies. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed." People v. Clark (Cal. App. 2022)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: