The People of the State of California v. Terry Edward Keegan

Santa Ana, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with sexual offenses against three minors and destroying or concealing evidence.



The operative amended information, filed in 2023, included the same offense charged as count 4 in the complaint. It also charged Keegan with committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)); count 1 re: Jane Doe No. 1, counts 5-9 re: Jane Doe No. 3); annoying a child under the age of 18 (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1); count 2 re: Jane Doe No. 2); sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1); count 3 re: Jane Doe No. 2); and destroying evidence (§ 135; count 10). It alleged Keegan committed the offenses in counts 1 and 4-9 on more than one child (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)); he had substantial sexual conduct with the victims in counts 4-9 (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)); and there existed several aggravating sentencing factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (6), (8), (11)).



* * *



Legal issue Can a defendant forfeit a statute of limitations defense for a lesser offense by failing to object to the jury instruction on that offense during trial?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The court addressed whether the defendant's conviction for misdemeanor simple battery, a lesser included offense, was barred by the statute of limitations, and whether the defendant forfeited the right to raise this claim on appeal by acquiescing to the jury instruction on the lesser offense.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SENTENCING. The court examined whether the trial court's failure to impose a sentence on all misdemeanor counts constituted an unauthorized sentence, warranting remand for resentencing on those counts.



Key Phrases Conviction on count 4. Statute of limitations claim. Unauthorized sentence. Misdemeanor simple battery. Forfeiture rule application.

A jury found the defendant guilty.



Affirmed on appeal.