P. v. Rider
Filed 6/28/06 P. v. Rider CA1/4
Opinion on second remand
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VANCE LARCELL RIDER, Defendant and Appellant. |
A097996 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC047362) |
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
In People v. Rider (Sept. 17, 2003, A097996 [nonpub. opn.] (Rider I)), we affirmed defendant's conviction of failing to register as a convicted sex offender as required by Penal Code section 290 (hereafter section 290). The opinion was authored by then Presiding Justice Kay, with Justices Reardon and Sepulveda concurring. On December 23, 2003, review was granted by our Supreme Court pending consideration of a related issue. (People v. Rider, S120014.) On September 28, 2005, the matter was transferred to this Court with directions to vacate our decision in Rider I and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Barker (2004) 35 Cal.4th 345 and People v. Sorden (2005) 36 Cal.4th 65.
In People v. Rider (Dec. 9, 2005, A097996 [nonpub. opn.] (Rider II)), after reconsidering the cause, we again affirmed. Between Rider I and Rider II, Justice Kay retired and Judge Munter of the San Francisco Superior Court was assigned to assist this Division by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Judge Munter replaced Justice Kay on the panel and authored the opinion in Rider II, with Justices Reardon and Sepulveda concurring. On March 29, 2006, review was granted and the cause transferred to this Court with directions to vacate our decision in Rider II and issue a decision that considers whether the opinion after remand was issued by a properly constituted panel. (S140474.)
Justice Kay has been assigned by the Chief Justice to assist on this case. The present panel, therefore, is the same as the original panel which decided Rider I. Accordingly, whether the replacement of Justice Kay with Judge Munter in Rider II resulted in an improper panel is now moot. Having held oral argument, we proceed to the merits of the appeal.
BACKGROUND[1]
The pertinent circumstances are easily recounted and largely without dispute.
Defendant stipulated that he â€
