People v. Acosta
Annotate this CaseAcosta, convicted for committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 and for contacting a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense, argued that the sentence imposed for contacting a minor with the intent to commit a sexual offense should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 6541 because he harbored the same intent and objective for both crimes of conviction and his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the sexual offender fines; and the trial court lacked authority to issue a protective order forbidding him from contacting the sister of the named victim of his crimes. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly imposed sentences for each count of conviction without staying the punishment for either crime and had authority to issue a protective order barring Acosta from having contact with Jane Doe’s sister, under section 136.2(i)(1). Acosta did not demonstrate that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request a hearing on Acosta’s ability to pay the sexual offender fines. The court encouraged trial courts to inquire into a defendant’s financial circumstances when imposing a sexual offender fine, even in the absence of a request by the defendant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.