People v. Oliver CA1/3

Filed 3/20/14 P. v. Oliver CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136432 v. IVAN GARCIA OLIVER, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR914443) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ivan Garcia Oliver was convicted by a jury of the first degree murder of Michael Dodele on November 20, 2007, with use of a knife (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and information derived from the Megan’s Law Web site (Pen. Code, § 290.46, subd. (j)(2)).1 He was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder, plus one year for using the knife, five years for using Megan’s Law information, and one year for a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He argues that the Megan’s Law enhancement finding must be reversed for instructional error and insufficient evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND Oliver and Dodele were neighbors in a mobile home park. Oliver lived in the park with his girlfriend and their four-year-old son. Dodele moved into a nearby trailer less than a month before the murder.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Mobile home park manager Lacey Kou testified that, two or three days before the murder, Oliver told her that he was concerned for the safety of children in the complex. Oliver testified that he told Kou that he saw someone in a parked car trying to get his son’s attention, and that the car sped off when Oliver approached. Kou told Oliver that they could learn whether registered sex offenders lived in the area by going to the Megan’s Law Web site. Section 290.46, commonly known as “Megan’s Law,” requires the Department of Justice to maintain a public website with information about registered sex offenders. (Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, 419–420.) Oliver testified that he did not know how to use computers, but he sat next to Kou when she accessed the Megan’s Law Web site. He said she pulled up a map of Lake County with “a bunch of little red blips, like little balloons, like all over the county.” She went to another page showing the area where they lived, and pulled up people’s names by clicking on the balloons. Another page showed photos, names, and addresses of sex offenders in their area, one of whom was Dodele. She printed a two-page document with information about Dodele and others and gave it to Oliver. She told Oliver that Dodele was a child molester. Kou testified that the website listed Dodele’s crimes as rape and “forced oral copulation on a child under 14,” or words to that effect, which upset Oliver. Oliver denied that he saw the webpage that specified Dodele’s crimes. Dodele was in fact a serial rapist, not a child molester, whose long record of offenses against adult women, usually involving threats with knives, was put into evidence in Oliver’s defense. Dodele had been in prison for close to 20 years, and was released about two months before Oliver killed him. Kou could understandably have believed that Dodele was a child molester given how his crimes were described on the Web site. The crimes were identified as “rape by force,” and “oral copulation with person under 14/etc or by force/etc.” (Italics added; capitalization deleted.) Kou’s mother, Lena Wilson, also looked at the Megan’s Law Web site. She concluded only that Dodele “could have been a child molester.” (Italics added.) Wilson testified that she told Oliver that Dodele might not be a child molester, but Oliver said