People v. Letchaw CA4/1

── People v. Letchaw CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Letchaw CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D085028 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE414484) CURTIS ANTONIO LETCHAW, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lilys McCoy, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Matthew Mulford and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Curtis Antonio Letchaw of felony failing to register as a convicted sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b); count 1) and misdemeanor providing false registry information (§ 290.018(k); count 2). Letchaw was sentenced to four years in prison. He raises three issues on appeal. First, Letchaw—who exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial—argues the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on CALCRIM No. 361, which concerns a testifying defendant’s failure to explain adverse evidence. We agree the court erred in giving an unwarranted instruction but conclude on this record the error was harmless under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. Second, Letchaw claims the trial court erred in sentencing him under the Three Strikes law because he did not admit the alleged strike prior. We agree that, given Letchaw never admitted the strike prior on the record, reversal of the true finding on the strike prior allegation is required. Lastly, Letchaw contends the Felony Minutes—Pronouncement of Judgment dated August 14, 2024 must be corrected to reflect a sentence as to count 2 of 364 days in custody, rather than 365. We accept the People’s concession. We therefore reverse the true finding as to the prior strike allegation and remand to the trial court to (1) hold a hearing on whether Letchaw elects to admit the strike prior allegation or proceed to trial on it and hold further proceedings accordingly and (2) amend the Felony Minutes—Pronouncement of Judgment dated August 14, 2024 to reflect a sentence as to count 2 of 364 days in custody. In all other respects, we affirm. I. In 2012, Letchaw was convicted of a sex crime that imposed a lifetime requirement that he register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290. Section 290 requires individuals convicted of specified sex crimes to register 2 the address at which they are residing with law enforcement. (§ 290(b).) A person who is transient—defined as “a person who has no residence”—must register every 30 days and “list the places where” that person “sleeps, eats, works, frequents, and engages in leisure activities.” (§ 290.011(a), (d), (g).) If a transient person moves to a residence, the person must register that address within five working days. (§ 290.011(b).) A. In late January 2020, Letchaw registered as transient. Letchaw initialed each requirement on the registration form and affirmed he had read and understood them all.