People v. Barron CA5

California Court of Appeal May 11, 2015 No. F068302Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements, holding that the defendant forfeited his claim regarding inadequate advisements by failing to raise it in the trial court and that he failed to demonstrate prejudice.

Issues

Whether the defendant's underlying conviction is unconstitutional due to a failure to advise him of lifetime registration requirements.
Whether the defendant preserved his claim for appeal by raising it in the trial court.
Whether the defendant demonstrated prejudice resulting from an alleged failure to advise of the registration requirement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Failure to raise this issue in the trial court precludes raising it in the context of this appeal.”

“While sex offender registration is a direct consequence of a plea, the failure to advise of registration rights does not constitute a violation of constitutional rights.”

“Regardless, a failure to advise of the direct consequences of a plea is reversible only if prejudice is established.”

Filed 5/11/15 P. v. Barron CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068302 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF149248A) v.

JUANARD DI BARRON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John R. Brownlee, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Juanard Di Barron contends his convictions for failing to comply with Penal Code section 2901 registration requirements should be reversed because he was never advised that his prior guilty plea to the substantive offense would require lifetime registration. We will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On the afternoon of June 24, 2013, Bakersfield Police Officer Jason Parker responded to a local motel where a resident, Barron, was engaging in bizarre behavior. Barron advised Parker he was a sex offender. Parker asked Barron if he was required to register; Barron indicated he was but stated, “I’m not going to.” Barron indicated he had not registered with the motel address where he was living, his conviction was unconstitutional, and he had decided not register for that reason. Parker advised Barron he should register right away; Barron stated he would not do so. Bakersfield Police Department records showed that Barron last registered in March 2013 at a different address. Barron registered on March 12, 2013, at a Banks Street address; he had not registered at the motel address where he was living. Barron was charged with one count of failing to register within five days of a change of address (§ 290, subd. (b)) and one count of failure to register after a birthday (§ 290.012, subd. (a)). Also, one strike prior and three prison priors were alleged. On July 31, 2013, Barron, representing himself in propria persona, filed a motion to set aside the underlying conviction for violating section 288, subdivision (a), which conviction occurred in 1986 as the result of a plea in Kern County Superior Court case No. SC030625A. Barron argued that he had received inadequate advisements under

People v. Barron CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief