P. v. Kilme
Fredrick D. Kilmer appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of annoying or molesting a child. (Pen. Code, 647.6, subd. (c)(2).)[1] He contends his conviction must be reversed because (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion under section 995 to set aside the information, (2) his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence, (3) the court erred when it admitted certain evidence at his trial, (4) the court erred when it denied his motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to strike one or more of his prior convictions, and (5) the sentence he received was cruel and unusual punishment. Court reject these arguments and affirm.
Comments on P. v. Kilme