P. v. Holland
Following a jury trial, defendant David Leonard Holland was found guilty of forcible oral copulation in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c)(2).[1] The jury also found true that (1) the victim was 65 years of age or older and defendant knew or reasonably should have known that fact (§ 667.9, subd. (a)), (2) defendant committed the offense during the commission of burglary with the intent to commit the charged offense (§§ 667.61, subd. (a), 667.61, subd. (d)) and (3) defendant committed the offense during the commission of burglary with the intent to commit theft (§§ 667.61, subd. (b), 667.61, subd. (e)). The trial court found true the special allegations that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 25 years to life consecutive to a determinate six-year prison term. (See §§ 667, subd. (a); 667.9, subd. (a); 667.61, subds. (a), (c),(d).)
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress forensic evidence developed from a buccal swab that he voluntarily provided in an unrelated criminal investigation in which his brother was a suspect. He also asserts that the improper admission of hearsay evidence violated his constitutional rights to confrontation, due process, and fair trial.
We affirm.
Comments on P. v. Holland