People v. Medelez
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for three sex offenses against his adult roommate and two sex offenses against a minor. At issue is whether defendant should be convicted of both attempted oral copulation of a minor (Penal Code, 664, 288a, subd. (b)(1)) and luring a minor with intent to orally copulate (Penal Code, 288.3). In the published portion of the opinion, the court concluded that defendant is guilty of both crimes where he engaged in a preparatory communication and a direct act. In this instance, the “general” statute (attempt) contains an element that is not contained on the face of the more recently enacted “special” statute (luring). Attempt requires a direct but ineffectual act that goes beyond mere preparation. Luring does not. Accordingly, the court stayed the four-month sentence for attempted oral copulation, corrected the abstract of judgment to delete a dismissed count, and otherwise affirmed.
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.