People v. Carlton CA3

Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Carlton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C069612

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F06233)

v.

JAMES DOMINIQUE CARLTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant James Dominique Carlton of numerous sexual offenses against three victims, sustaining an allegation that the existence of multiple victims qualified him for the alternative sentencing scheme under Penal Code section 667.61.1 Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven consecutive indeterminate terms of 15 years to life in state prison with a consecutive indeterminate term of 25 years to life for a count involving a forcible offense, all of which was consecutive to a five-year determinate term for an attempted offense. The court also imposed a concurrent one-year jail term for the misdemeanor conviction in count 10.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court violated his right to due process when it allowed the prosecutor to amend the information to conform to the dates proven at trial. He maintains that the misdemeanor offense in any event is time-barred, a point the People concede. He also maintains that the abstract of judgment for the determinate term lists the wrong attempted offense in count 3 (§ 288.7, subd. (b), rather than § 288, subd. (b)(1)), a point the People concede, and the indeterminate abstract of judgment includes a $600 fine for the “Serious Habitual Offender Program” that the trial court expressly declined to impose in its oral rendition of judgment, a point the People also concede and which the trial court has subsequently corrected in an amended abstract of judgment. We will modify the judgment by reversing count 10 with directions to dismiss it, and also direct the trial court to issue a corrected determinate abstract of judgment. As modified, we will affirm the judgment.