People v. Mendoza CA4/1

Filed 12/28/23 P. v. Mendoza CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081440

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD290697) NAHUM MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed. Patrick Morgan Ford, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Paige B. Hazard, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nahum Mendoza appeals a trial court order requiring him to register

as a sex offender for a violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (d).1

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

On appeal, Mendoza contends that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring him to register because the court failed to make a finding that the offense was the product of sexual compulsion or gratification. First, we conclude that Mendoza did not forfeit his argument because he raised the registration requirements sufficiently before the trial court. However, we determine that the trial court sufficiently set forth its analysis in support of its implied finding that the offense was committed as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 7, 2022, Mendoza pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age, a felony. (§ 261.5, subd. (d).) In his plea form, he stated, “I had sexual intercourse w/ a woman before her 18th birthday. I was 24 years old at that time. The woman was under 16.” PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At his sentencing hearing, Mendoza asked the court to decline to order sex offender registration, contrary to the recommendation of the probation office and the prosecutor. After discussion, the court found that discretionary sex offender registration was proper, noting, “It’s a relationship that the defendant is 24—we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt—she was 16. Okay. Res ipsa, I mean, it is lewd and lascivious on its face, right?” Mendoza appeals. DISCUSSION The Penal Code allows for the court to require registration as to certain sex offenders. (§ 290 et seq.) For defendants convicted of statutorily specified sex offenses, the registration requirement is mandatory (§ 290,