6-8-2011 California:
People v. Gerber
196 Cal.App.4th 368 (2011)
Defendant Joseph Lowell Gerber appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a))1 (
count one), annoying or molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (a)) (
count two), furnishing marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (a)) (
count three), and two counts of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353) (
counts four and five).
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of possession of child pornography (§ 311.11) and raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and instructional error.
In addition, he asserts that the trial court lacked authority to make its no-contact order.
We hold that the phrase "the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct ..." in section 311.11 requires a real child to have actually engaged in or simulated the [196 Cal.App.4th 372] sexual conduct depicted.
We reverse the conviction of possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11 based on the insufficiency of the evidence (count one) and we reverse the convictions of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11353 (counts four and five) based on instructional error.
We also strike the no-contact order.
... ... ...
E. No-contact Order
At sentencing, the trial court ordered defendant to have no contact with the victim or her family.
Defendant argues that the order is invalid because it was not authorized by section 1202.05 or any other statute. Defendant was not convicted of any of the sex offenses enumerated by section 1202.05, which presently authorizes courts to prohibit visitation between a defendant sentenced to state prison and the child victim. The People concede error and ask this court to strike the order. We agree this is the appropriate remedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment