People v. Wychocki
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | KING; HANING |
| Citation | 188 Cal.App.3d 1063,233 Cal.Rptr. 830 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Stanley H. WYCHOCKI, Defendant and Appellant. A033603. |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1987 |
Page 830
v.
Stanley H. WYCHOCKI, Defendant and Appellant.
[188 Cal.App.3d 1064] John K. Van De Kamp, Atty. Gen., Dane R. Gillette, Christopher J. Wei, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Mark D. Greenberg, Berkeley, for defendant and appellant.
KING, Associate Justice.
Stanley H. Wychocki appeals from a judgment of imprisonment for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and oral copulation with a child under 14 (Pen.Code, § 288a, subd. (c)). We reverse the judgment as to the sentence imposed and remand the cause for resentencing.
According to a probation report, Wychocki molested his niece in June 1979 when she was nine years old. In April 1985, when an officer investigated the incident, the victim told the officer that Wychocki had fondled her breasts and vagina, played with her anal area, committed oral copulation upon her [188 Cal.App.3d 1065] vagina, and attempted to place his tongue on her anus. When the officer interviewed Wychocki, he admitted committing the oral copulation.
Wychocki pleaded nolo contendre to both counts. On October 2, 1985, the court sentenced him to two concurrent six-year prison terms.
Page 831
I
Preliminarily, the Attorney General contends the appeal must be dismissed because Wychocki's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When persons are in custody, however, an appeal is timely if the notice of appeal was delivered to the inmate's custodian within the time for appeal. (People v. Milton (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 408, 410, fn. 1, 75 Cal.Rptr. 803.) Based on defense counsel's declaration in support of a request for findings on appeal (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 23), we find that on November 26, 1985, Wychocki delivered to a guard an envelope containing the notice of appeal, addressed to his trial attorney; the guard did not post the envelope until December 2; the trial attorney received the envelope on December 4 and filed the notice of appeal that day.
Accordingly, the appeal is not to be dismissed. The notice of appeal was delivered to Wychocki's custodian within the time for appeal.
Wychocki contends the concurrent mid-term six-year sentences were cruel and unusual in view of "the nature of the offense and the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger which both present to society...." (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 105 Cal.Rptr. 217, 503 P.2d 921.) He cites his favorable military and employment record, his attendance at counseling sessions, the absence of reported molestation incidents since the present offenses,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan, In re, S025000
...[4 Cal.4th 119] of Court. 1 (See People v. Lepe (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1347, 1349, fn. 2, 241 Cal.Rptr. 388; People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1065, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830.) A recent Court of Appeal decision has held, however, that the prison-delivery rule no longer is applicable in ......
-
People v. Jackson, A034604
...long sentence on resentencing is great enough to justify the public expense involved in resentencing. (See People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1067, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830; People Page 8 v. Dunnahoo, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at p. 579, 199 Cal.Rptr. 796.) In the event of no resentencing,......
-
People v. Casillas, C007891
...but not filed as directed by Rule 31. Citing In re Gonsalves (1957) 48 Cal.2d 638, 311 P.2d 483, and People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830, defendant contends his notice was timely because it was placed in the prison mailbox within 60 days after the rendition of j......
-
People v. Pierce, A069479
...reversed Judge Jamar for failing to state reasons for denying probation and imposing a prison term (People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1066-1067, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830 [opn. by King, J.]; People v. Estes (Feb. 11, 1992) A055058 [nonpub. opn. by King, J.] ), for failing to state reas......
-
Jordan, In re, No. S025000
...[4 Cal.4th 119] of Court. 1 (See People v. Lepe (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1347, 1349, fn. 2, 241 Cal.Rptr. 388; People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1065, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830.) A recent Court of Appeal decision has held, however, that the prison-delivery rule no longer is applicable in ......
-
People v. Jackson, No. A034604
...long sentence on resentencing is great enough to justify the public expense involved in resentencing. (See People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1067, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830; People Page 8 v. Dunnahoo, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at p. 579, 199 Cal.Rptr. 796.) In the event of no resentencing,......
-
People v. Casillas, C007891
...but not filed as directed by Rule 31. Citing In re Gonsalves (1957) 48 Cal.2d 638, 311 P.2d 483, and People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830, defendant contends his notice was timely because it was placed in the prison mailbox within 60 days after the rendition of j......
-
People v. Pierce, No. A069479
...reversed Judge Jamar for failing to state reasons for denying probation and imposing a prison term (People v. Wychocki (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1066-1067, 233 Cal.Rptr. 830 [opn. by King, J.]; People v. Estes (Feb. 11, 1992) A055058 [nonpub. opn. by King, J.] ), for failing to state reas......