P. v. Bronson
Filed 7/9/12 P.
v. Bronson CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEVEN GEORGE
BRONSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
F063293
(Super. Ct. No. 1425734)
THE COURT
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Ricardo
Cordova, Judge.
John
Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez
and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Steven George Bronson, defendant,
was convicted of a lewd or lascivious act on Jane Doe, a 15-year-old child, in
violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1). He appeals, claiming he cannot be convicted
of this crime because the offense occurred after her 15th birthday. Based on the recent California Supreme Court
case of People v. Cornett (2012) 53
Cal.4th 1261, we affirm the judgment.
FACTs
On
November 4,
2010, 15-year-old Jane Doe was in a store
shopping with her mother and her sister.
She became separated from her mother.
Defendant approached her and asked her to try on a pair of shoes for
him. She agreed. Defendant knelt down and took Jane’s foot and
placed it in the shoe. He then pulled
her foot that was inside the shoe to his groin area, making contact. He moved Jane’s foot back and forth for
several minutes and also placed his mouth on the skin of her upper thigh. (Jane was wearing shorts.) He was making groaning noises while he
engaged in this activity. Jane’s mother
eventually observed what was happening and told defendant to stop. He fled the store.
Discussion
Defendant
was convicted of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1), which
punishes a lewd and lascivious act with “a child of 14 or 15†by a perpetrator
who is at least 10 years older than the child.
Defendant contends he cannot be convicted of violating this section
because Jane Doe was 15 years and nearly four months of age at the time of the
alleged offense, and the statute was not meant to apply to anyone who has
passed their 15th birthday.
The
California Supreme Court recently interpreted a similar statute and determined
that the “statutory phrase ‘10 years of age or younger’ includes children
younger than 10 years of age and children who have reached their 10th birthday
but who have not yet reached their 11th birthday.†(People
v. Cornett, supra, 53 Cal.4th at
p. 1264.) The court’s decision was
based in accordance with the ordinary understanding of age. “In common parlance, a person reaches a
particular age on the anniversary of his or her birth and remains that age
until reaching the next anniversary of his or her birth.†(Id.
at p. 1265.)
Defendant
has not made an argument that would persuade us that the interpretation of the
age requirement set forth in the statute applicable to his conviction should be
different from the interpretation of age in Cornett. In a supplemental
letter brief filed in this court defendant has acknowledged that
took in his opening brief.
Defendant
was properly convicted of violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c)(1)
because Jane Doe had reached her 15th birthday but had not yet reached her 16th
birthday when the offense was committed.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Detjen, J.
