P. v. Gonzales
Defendant Loren Charles Gonzales appeals from judgment entered following a jury conviction for failure to register as a sex offender during the period of March 29, 2006, through April 21, 2006 (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (g)(2); count 1).[1] The trial court also found true allegations that defendant had a prior strike ( 1170.12, subd. (a)(d), 667, subd. (b)(i)) and prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. Alternatively, defendant argues jury instruction CALCRIM No. 1170 was vague and ambiguous and did not adequately define the term residence, in violation of defendants state and federal constitutional rights to due process. Defendant further alternatively asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In defendants supplemental brief, defendant argues the definition of residence in section 290.011, subd. (g)[2]is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in violation of his state and federal constitutional due process rights. Court reject defendants contentions and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Gonzales