count alleging violation in California

2025(Johnson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 248 .) “[I]f an accusatory pleading is improper (i.e., a count alleging violation of section 288.5 is joined, and not — as subdivision (c) requires — charged alternatively, with one or more counts alleging specific sexual offenses), then the multiple convictions predicated thereon cannot stand, and either the continuous abuse conviction or the convictions on the specific offenses must be vacated.” (Id. at p. 245.) We are bound by Johnson’s interpretation of section 288.5.

2024(Johnson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 248 .) “[I]f an accusatory pleading is improper (i.e., a count alleging violation of section 288.5 is joined, and not—as subdivision (c) requires—charged alternatively, with one or more counts alleging specific sexual offenses), then the multiple convictions predicated thereon cannot stand, and either the continuous abuse conviction or the convictions on the specific offenses must be vacated.” (Id., at p. 245.) We are bound by Johnson’s interpretation of section 288.5.

2025(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .) Logically, if section 288.5 prohibits multiple convictions predicated on an operative pleading in violation of section 288.5, subdivision (c), then a defendant cannot forfeit a challenge to those convictions by failing to demur to the underlying pleading.

2024(Auto Equity, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 455 .) Logically, if section 288.5 prohibits multiple convictions predicated on an operative pleading in violation of section 288.5, subdivision (c), then a defendant cannot forfeit a challenge to those convictions by failing to demur to the underlying pleading.

2014(Id. at p. 248.) Four months after Johnson was decided, the Court of Appeal held it was "appropriate, in deciding which convictions to vacate as the remedy for a violation of the proscription against multiple convictions set forth in section 288.5, subdivision (c), that we leave appellant standing convicted of the alternative offenses that are most commensurate with his culpability." (People v. Torres (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1059 .) Sometimes that will require vacating the conviction under section 288.5 (id. at pp. 1059-1061), and other times it will require vacating the convictions of th

2014(Id. at p. 248.) Four months after Johnson was decided, the Court of Appeal held it was "appropriate, in deciding which convictions to vacate as the remedy for a violation of the proscription against multiple convictions set forth in section 288.5, subdivision (c), that we leave appellant standing convicted of the alternative offenses that are most commensurate with his culpability." (People v. Torres (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1059 .) Sometimes that will require vacating the conviction under section 288.5 (id. at pp. 1059-1061), and other times it will require vacating the convictions of th

2003We need not address that question here. 86 Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63 [ 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 ].

2003We need not address that question here. 86 Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63 [ 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 ].

2003Section 246 . . . and who in the commission of that felony intentionally and personally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great bodily injury . . . shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life.” 71 Sections 193 and 664. 72 Section 245, subdivision (a)(1). 73 Section 246. 74 The People contend an enhancement was adequately pled under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) because the count alleging the violation of section 246 alleged Riva “did willfully, unlawfully and maliciously discharge a firearm at an occupied motor

2003Section 246 . . . and who in the commission of that felony intentionally and personally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great bodily injury . . . shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life.” 71 Sections 193 and 664. 72 Section 245, subdivision (a)(1). 73 Section 246. 74 The People contend an enhancement was adequately pled under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) because the count alleging the violation of section 246 alleged Riva “did willfully, unlawfully and maliciously discharge a firearm at an occupied motor

1937(People v. Helbing, 61 Cal. 620 .) ’” The offense charged in the count alleging violation of the Juvenile Court Law is not the same in law and not necessarily in fact with that charged in the count alleging violation of *291 section 288 of the Penal Code.