People v. Aragon CA3

Filed 12/4/15 P. v. Aragon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C068914

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F08254)

v.

JONATHAN RAY ARAGON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant, Jonathan Ray Aragon, stands convicted by a jury of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of Penal Code section 290.018, subdivision (b). (Unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.) On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in excluding, pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, evidence of issues raised on appeal from a prior conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. We hold the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence and affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In December 1994, defendant was convicted of willfully committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years in violation of section 288, subdivision (a). After he was released from prison, and as a consequence of that conviction, defendant was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. (§ 290.003.) In People v. Aragon, (Sacramento County Superior Court No. 10F03266) filed in 2010 (“the 2010 conviction”) defendant was convicted of violating section 290.018, subdivision (b) of the Sexual Offender Registration Act (§ 290 et seq.; “the Act”) by failing to register his residence address with the proper authorities. We reversed his conviction on appeal on June 29, 2012. (People v. Aragon (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 504.) We take judicial notice of that decision and recite the following facts set forth therein. “Defendant was convicted in 1995 of lewd conduct with a child. (§ 288.) After a period of incarceration, he was released on November 27, 2000, under the supervision of the Sacramento County Probation Department. At the time of his release, defendant was notified of his duty to register as a sex offender under the Act. The written form, which an officer reviewed with defendant, explained 16 aspects of the duty to register. It did not, however, explain the difference between a transient and someone who has a residence. The closest statement in that regard was, ‘If I have no residence address, I must update my registration at least once every 90 days [(now 30 days)] and annually within 5 working days of my birthday.’ (Boldface omitted.) The form also stated, ‘I must provide proof of residence with a California Drivers License or identification card or a recent rent or utility bill. This proof is required within 30 days of registration.’ (Boldface omitted.) Defendant indicated on the form that he expected to be a transient upon release. “In December 2009, defendant’s brother . . . invited defendant to park defendant’s travel trailer on the street in front of [the brother’s] duplex because it had been cold at