People v. Warner

39 Cal. 4th 548, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 139 P.3d 475 (Cal. 2006) · Supreme Court of California · August 10, 2006 · No. No. S126233

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that the defendant's prior Nebraska conviction for child sexual assault did not qualify as a California serious felony for purposes of a five-year sentencing enhancement or the Three Strikes law. The Nebraska statute required intentional touching that could reasonably be construed as sexually motivated, but did not require the specific lewd intent required by California Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The court reversed the enhancement ruling and the conclusion that the prior conviction made defendant eligible for Three Strikes sentencing, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The Nebraska conviction did not qualify as a California serious felony because the Nebraska offense did not require proof of the specific lewd intent required by California Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), and the record did not establish conduct constituting another California felony that qualified under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(6).
  2. The Nebraska conviction did not render Warner eligible for sentencing under California's three strikes law because the record did not establish an offense that, if committed in California, would be punishable as a felony and would include all elements of a qualifying serious felony.
  3. The defendant's three convictions and the Court of Appeal's reversal of the habitual sexual offender determination were outside the limited grant of review and were unaffected by the Supreme Court's decision.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Warner's prior Nebraska conviction for sexual assault of a child contained all of the elements of a California serious felony under Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(6), such that it supported a five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a).
  2. Whether the Nebraska conviction qualified as a prior felony for purposes of California's three strikes law.
  3. Whether Nebraska's child-sexual-assault statute required the same specific lewd intent required by California Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (18)

  • Caspers Constr. Co. v. Nebraska State Patrol, 270 Neb. 205, 700 N.W.2d 587 (2005)(followed)
  • In re Jennings, 34 Cal. 4th 254, 263, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 645, 95 P.3d 906 (2004)(followed)
  • State v. Osborn, 241 Neb. 424, 433, 490 N.W.2d 160, 167 (1992)(followed)
  • State v. Berkman, 230 Neb. 163, 166-167, 430 N.W.2d 310, 313 (1988)(followed)
  • Cooper v. Swoap, 11 Cal. 3d 856, 886, 115 Cal. Rptr. 1, 524 P.2d 97 (1974)(followed)
  • Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 325, 63 S. Ct. 1098, 87 L. Ed. 1424 (1943)(followed)
  • People v. Fisher, 77 Mich. App. 6, 13, 257 N.W.2d 250, 254 (1977)(followed)
  • People v. Piper, 223 Mich. App. 642, 646, 567 N.W.2d 483, 485 (1997)(followed)
  • People v. Martinez, 11 Cal. 4th 434, 444-450, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 905, 903 P.2d 1037 (1995)(followed)
  • People v. Murphy, 25 Cal. 4th 136, 141-149, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 387, 19 P.3d 1129 (2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…