People v. Sally CA5

Filed 1/15/21 P. v. Sally 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079349 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 4002850) v.

WALTER SALLY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Thomas D. Zeff, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Christopher J. Rench, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Meehan, Acting P.J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Following a bench trial in 2019, appellant Walter Sally was convicted of (1) failing to register annually as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.012, subd. (a);1 count I) and (2) failing to register his change of residential address as a sex offender (§ 290.013, subd. (a); count II). The court sentenced him to prison for the low term of 16 months in count I, along with a concurrent low term of 16 months in count II. Appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He contends that his trial counsel should have filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief. He asserts that, setting aside his own statements to law enforcement, the prosecution failed to satisfy the corpus delicti rule in count II. According to appellant, the prosecution failed to establish with independent evidence that he had moved from his prior residence. We conclude that appellant fails to demonstrate ineffective assistance, and we affirm. BACKGROUND The parties below waived their respective rights to a trial by jury. We summarize the material facts from the bench trial. I. The Evidence From The Prosecution’s Case-In-Chief. In 2008, appellant was convicted by a plea agreement of one count of incest (§ 285) and he was sentenced to prison for an upper term of three years. That conviction required him to register as a sex offender. In 2008, appellant signed a form titled “Notice Of Sex Offender Registration Requirement” acknowledging, among other things, that (1) he has a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender; (2) he is required to update his registration each year within five working days of his birthday; and (3) he must inform law enforcement within five working days of any change of address.