Supreme Court of California Justia
Docket No. S130860M
People v. Dominguez

Filed 11/1/06

Plaintiff and Respondent,
) Ct.App.
Defendant and Appellant.
Super. Ct. No. CRF99-37033

The majority opinion is modified as follows.
The final sentence of the first paragraph on page 1162, which reads “This
issue was not raised in the Court of Appeal and is thus not properly raised in this
court. (People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 1001.)” is deleted.
The phrase “Assuming the issue was properly before us” in the first
sentence of the second paragraph on page 1162 is deleted, so the sentence reads:
“We find no prejudicial error.”
This modification does not affect the judgment.

Opinion Information
Date:Docket Number:
Thu, 11/02/2006S130860M

1The People (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by John H. Deist
Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA

2Dominguez, Fernando (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Dallas Sacher
6th District Appellate Program
100 N. Winchester Boulevard, Suite 310
Santa Clara, CA

Aug 28 2006Opinion: Affirmed in part/reversed in part

Jan 21 2005Petition for review filed
  by respondent (The People).
Jan 21 2005Record requested
Jan 25 2005Received Court of Appeal record
  two file jackets/briefs/two accordian files
Jan 28 2005Answer to petition for review filed
  by counsel for appellant (Fernando Dominguez).
Mar 10 2005Time extended to grant or deny review
  to and including April 21, 2005 or the date upon which review is either granted or denied.
Mar 30 2005Petition for review granted (criminal case)
  Petition for review GRANTED. In addition to the issues set forth in the petition for review, the parties are requested to brief the following issue: Did the trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury pursuant to People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, concerning a reasonable and bona fide belief in the victim's consent to engage in sexual intercourse? Votes: George, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Brown, and Moreno, JJ.
Apr 1 2005Note:
  Records sent to Cal-Coord. Office: CT=2, RT=10, 2 affidavits, 2 w/2 suppl., 3, w/suppl., 4 w/suppl., 6, 7, 8= 2, Pet. for Rehrg., Confid. envelope.
Apr 11 2005Counsel appointment order filed
  Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, the Sixth District Appellate Program is hereby appointed to represent appellant on the appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days from the date respondent's opening brief on the merits is filed.
Apr 25 2005Request for extension of time filed
  Counsel for respondent requests extension of time to May 31, 2005, to file the opening brief on the merits.
Apr 28 2005Extension of time granted
  Respondent's time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including May 31, 2005.
May 31 2005Opening brief on the merits filed
  by counsel for resp, (People)
Jun 29 2005Answer brief on the merits filed
  by counsel for aplt. (Dominguez)
Jul 18 2005Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
  by counsel for resp. (People)
Aug 10 2005Compensation awarded counsel
  Atty Sacher - Sixth District Appellate Program
Mar 9 2006Letter sent to:
  San Benito County Supr. Crt. requesting exhibits (by fax)
May 2 2006Case ordered on calendar
  June 1, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco
May 12 2006Filed letter from:
  Dallas Sacher, counsel for appellant Dominguez, affirming availability for scheduled argument on June 1st, and requesting no further delay of argument due to travel plans on June 2nd.
Jun 1 2006Cause argued and submitted
Aug 28 2006Opinion filed: Affirmed in part, reversed in part
  and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinon. OPINION BY: Werdegar, J. --- joined by: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, JJ. CONCURRING OPINION BY : Corrigan, J.
Sep 12 2006Rehearing petition filed
  counsel for aplt. (F. Dominguez)
Sep 13 2006Time extended to consider modification or rehearing
  To November 22, 2006.
Nov 1 2006Rehearing denied
Nov 1 2006Opinion modified - no change in judgment
Nov 1 2006Remittitur issued (criminal case)
Nov 3 2006Received:
  from CA/6, receipt for remittitur
Mar 28 2007Compensation awarded counsel
  Atty Sacher - Sixth District Appellate Program

May 31 2005Opening brief on the merits filed
Jun 29 2005Answer brief on the merits filed
Jul 18 2005Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website