People v. Volosin CA3

Filed 3/25/16 P. v. Volosin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079102

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. S13CRF0188)

v.

SKY LANCE VOLOSIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Sky Lance Volosin pled no contest to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger. At sentencing, the trial court ordered him to register as a sex offender. Defendant now challenges that order, arguing: (1) the trial court applied the wrong standard in finding the offense was committed “for purposes of sexual gratification”; (2) the evidence did not support a finding that lifetime registration was necessary; and (3) the court was unaware of its discretion to order registration for only the duration of probation. Though we find no merit in plaintiff’s first two contentions, defendant is correct -- and the People concede -- that remand is required because the court did not understand its discretion to order registration for the duration of probation.

1

BACKGROUND Defendant was 26 when he began a year-long relationship with the 16-year-old victim. During the relationship, they had sex many times, and the victim became pregnant. They had planned to marry, but the victim ended the relationship after she met someone else and was no longer happy with defendant. Defendant later pled no contest to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (c).) Following the plea, a probation report was prepared and two court-ordered experts testified to defendant’s likelihood of reoffending. The experts’ opinions were that defendant’s risk of reoffending was low. Both testified that the offenses were related to an emotional relationship and were not solely or primarily for sexual gratification. They defined “sexual gratification” as for one’s own “self-interest, not for the purpose of having a relationship with another person . . .” and “engaging in the relationship or the behavior . . . from an objectification perspective rather than a relationship.” On cross-examination of the experts, the prosecution brought up that defendant, after being charged in this case, was in the company of another minor, a 17-year-old female, who described herself as defendant’s best friend. In the probation report, the victim reported that defendant was her stepfather’s cousin. Her stepfather had sexually assaulted her for nearly 10 years. She confided in defendant about the abuse and her resulting depression. While defendant was her confidant -- and before any relationship had begun -- she went to defendant’s home and drank alcohol with him, his sister, and several of his friends. She fell asleep and awoke to find defendant having sex with her. She told him it was wrong, and defendant apologized. She became pregnant from the incident and began a relationship with defendant in order to raise the child together. The victim also reported that defendant