People v. Holtkamp CA4/3
Filed 6/30/15 P. v. Holtkamp CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G049887
v. (Super. Ct. No. 13WF1977)
BRIAN JAMES HOLTKAMP, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert R. Fitzgerald, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *
INTRODUCTION Defendant Brian James Holtkamp pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than himself. The trial court imposed a lifetime sex offender registration requirement on defendant. Defendant argues that the registration requirement is a punishment, due to the residency restrictions applicable to those persons subject to sex offender registration, and, therefore, under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490, a jury was required to make the findings supporting the discretionary registration requirement. The California Supreme Court recently rejected that very argument (People v. Mosley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1044, 1048); we therefore affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant pled guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than himself, in violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (c). Defendant’s written allocution reads: “I offer the following facts as the basis for my guilty plea: [¶] In Orange County, California, on and between August 1, 2012 and September 30, 2012, I unlawfully engaged in an act of sexual intercourse with Jane Doe who was a minor under 18 years of age and more than three years younger than me and we were not married.” The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on five years’ formal probation, on the condition that he serve 365 days in custody, with credit for time served. Pursuant to Penal Code section 290.006, the court imposed a lifetime sex offender registration requirement on defendant. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)