People v. Ray CA2/2
Filed 1/25/21 P. v. Ray CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, B298506
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA106626) v.
FRANK BERTHA RAY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John David Lord, Judge. Affirmed. Benjamin Adam Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________________
Frank Bertha Ray was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.)1 On appeal, he argues that the court should not have instructed the jury with a definition of “willfulness” from the Penal Code. The claim was waived when counsel said, “I have no objection” to the instruction. Ray asserts that the court erred by not instructing, sua sponte, on a mistake of law defense. We find no instructional error and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ray is required to register as a sex offender. On May 12, 2017, parole agents moved him to Los Angeles County.2 He had been living with his wife and family in Riverside County, until his wife obtained a restraining order against him. He is not allowed to have contact with her. Neel Pratap is a state parole agent who supervises sex offenders. He was assigned to supervise Ray. Pratap tells offenders at which police department they need to register, but it is each offender’s obligation to register, not one of the parole agent’s duties. Offenders who move to a new location must register within five business days. Failure to register is a parole violation. On May 12, Pratap met Ray, who wanted to move back with his wife. Pratap told Ray “we would get him housing and he was no longer allowed to go back to his previous residence,” and “he needed to update his registration at Long Beach Police Department.” Ray said “okay.” He previously registered in Long Beach in 2015, then registered in Riverside in early 2017. After meeting Pratap, Ray was driven to Pathways transitional housing facility on Zona Court in Long Beach, where the parole department paid for accommodations. Ray objected to living at Pathways. Ray wore a GPS tracking device to monitor his location. On May 16, Pratap was alerted by the tracking device that Ray had
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)