P. v. Chase

Filed 3/6/06 P. v. Chase CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE

The trial court convicted defendant Daniel Chase of reckless driving while evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290). Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of both charges. He argues that the officer's car was not distinctively marked as a police vehicle. He also argues that he had no duty to register as a sex offender--and, if he did, there was insufficient proof he had actual knowledge of any such duty. We disagree and affirm.

I. FACTS

The matter was tried to the court on the preliminary hearing transcript; police reports; copies of prior convictions; court, DMV, and other records; and defendant's trial testimony. Under applicable standards of appellate review, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment of conviction and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact which the trial court could reasonably find from the evidence. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303; People v. Neufer (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 244, 247.)

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender

In 1996, defendant was convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1)) in what was then the Municipal Court of the Walnut Creek/Danville Judicial District. As the Contra Costa County Superior Court found in a writ proceeding brought by defendant, which we will discuss below, â€