People v. Wallace CA3

Filed 11/4/13 P. v. Wallace CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C070640

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12F368)

TROY LEE WALLACE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Troy Lee Wallace pleaded no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse and oral copulation with a minor. Among other things, the trial court sentenced defendant to lifetime registration as a sex offender and imposed a $1,140 fine, including a $300 fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3. On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s discretionary order requiring him to register as a sex offender. Defendant claims the order violates equal protection, and further claims the record does not establish that the trial court understood and exercised

1

its discretion in ordering sex offender registration. In addition, defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the order for sex offender registration, and the trial court did not state on the record that it had applied the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Defendant further challenges the sex offender registration requirement on the ground that the residency restriction is punitive, and thus a jury must make the necessary factual findings beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, defendant claims the trial court imposed an unauthorized fine. We conclude defendant’s equal protection challenge to the sex offender registration requirement lacks merit, and he forfeited his other appellate challenges to the registration requirement. We further conclude the trial court relied on substantial evidence in imposing the registration requirement and did not abuse its discretion. Regarding the challenged fine, we conclude it was correctly imposed and accurately reflected in the judgment and in the abstract of judgment. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because defendant pleaded no contest, the factual record is limited to the trial court’s confidential sentencing report. Defendant had been the boyfriend of the 16-year- old victim’s mother for three years and had lived with the family for two years when “[e]verything started” in October or November. The victim said defendant began inserting his finger in her vagina while she slept, then progressed over time to repeated incidents of oral copulation and intercourse. In mid-January the mother was out of town and defendant was at home with the children. The victim called the mother and told her defendant touched her inappropriately. When the mother confronted defendant, he acknowledged sex with the victim and apologized for cheating on the mother. The mother called police. The victim recounted that, on the day she called her mother, she fell asleep on the family’s sofa while defendant gave her a massage. She woke up to find her pajamas and