People v. Simmons
210 Cal. App. 4th 778
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Simmons was convicted by jury of multiple sex offenses against three victims (D.C., S.D., D.R.) across 1988–2000, with a special allegation finding multiple victims (counts 1–3) and substantial sexual conduct (counts 5–6).
- Counts 1–3 involve D.C. from January 1988; count 4 involves S.D. from 1997–1998; counts 5–7 involve D.R. from 1999–2000.
- The trial court sentenced to an indeterminate term 45 years to life plus a consecutive 20-year determinate term.
- On appeal, Simmons challenges statute-of-limitations issues and various sentencing errors and ineffective assistance claims.
- The appellate court reverses count 7, affirms the other convictions, vacates the sentences, and remands for resentencing consistent with its views.
- The disposition includes remand for resentencing and a note about ex post facto considerations in applying sentencing schemes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 4 and 7 were time-barred | People contends count 4 timely under 801.1(a); count 7 barred under 801 | Simmons argues both counts were time-barred | Count 4 timely; count 7 untimely |
| Sufficiency of evidence for counts 1–3 timing | People argues the information tolled time limits via section 803(f) (1988 acts) | Simmons contends insufficient evidence that crimes occurred after 1/1/1988 | Issue forfeited; information supported timeliness under 803(f) |
| Sua sponte jury instruction on timing | People argues duty to instruct on timing when issue raised | Simmons did not raise timing issue; no sua sponte duty | No instructional error; duty not triggered by unraised issue |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on limitations preservation | People would have preserved issues if raised earlier; not prejudicial to defense | Counsel's performance deficient but no prejudice shown | No prejudicial ineffective-assistance impact; standard met |
| Full-term consecutive sentences on counts 1 and 7 and other sentencing errors | People sought full-term consecutive sentences under former §667.6 and current §667.6; ex post facto concerns | Constitutional rights violated by improper sentencing constructs | Reversed as to count 7; full-term consecutive terms on 1 and 7 not authorized; remand for resentencing with proper framework; other sentencing errors acknowledged and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 21 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 1999) (nonforfeiture rules for statute of limitations on appeal when information facially time-barred)
- In re White, 163 Cal.App.4th 1576 (Cal. App. 2008) (extension of limitations period for sex offenses; tolling analysis)
- Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (U.S. 2003) (ex post facto implications of extending statutes of limitations)
- People v. Padfield, 136 Cal.App.3d 218 (Cal. App. 1982) (nonforfeiture rule when information alleges the facts to toll limitations)
- People v. Thomas, 146 Cal.App.4th 1278 (Cal. App. 2007) (forfeiture of statute-of-limitations issues when information shows timely prosecution)