# People v. Montoya

> California Supreme Court · August 9, 2004 · 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784621

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO MONTOYA, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 9, 2004
- **Citations:** 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902; 33 Cal. 4th 1031; 2004 Daily Journal DAR 9731; 94 P.3d 1098; 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7215; 2004 Cal. LEXIS 7234
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chin
- **Judges:** Kennard, Werdegar, Chin
- **Cited by:** 144 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784621

## Opinion text

CHIN, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority that we need not decide whether the so-called accusatory pleading test applies here, because even that *1039 test does not aid defendant. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1035-1036.) I write separately only to emphasize the force of the argument against applying the accusatory pleading test in deciding whether conviction of two charged offenses is proper.
The accusatory pleading test has been used to determine whether a defendant received notice of the charges so as to permit conviction of an uncharged lesser offense. (E.g., People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288-289, 293 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 195 , 965 P.2d 713 ], and cases cited.) We have questioned, without deciding, whether the accusatory pleading test should apply “in other situations.” (People v. Pearson (1986) 42 Cal.3d 351, 356, fn. 2 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 509 , 721 P.2d 595 ].) Courts of Appeal have refused to apply that test in deciding whether multiple conviction of charged offenses is appropriate. (People v. Miranda (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1467 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 610 ]; People v. Watterson (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 942, 947, fn. 15 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 13 ]; People v. Scheidt (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 162, 165-171 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 228 ].)
Because a defendant is entitled to notice of the charges, it makes sense to look to the accusatory pleading (as well as the elements of the crimes) in deciding whether a defendant had adequate notice of an uncharged lesser offense so as to permit conviction of that uncharged offense. “As to a lesser included offense, the required notice is given when the specific language of the accusatory pleading adequately warns the defendant that the People will seek to prove the elements of the lesser offense.” (People v. Lohbauer (1981) 29 Cal.3d 364, 368-369 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 453 , 627 P.2d 183 ].) But it makes no sense to look to the pleading, rather than just the legal elements, in deciding whether conviction of two charged offenses is proper. Concerns about notice are irrelevant when both offenses are separately charged, so there “appears little reason” to apply the pleading test to charged offenses. (People v. Pearson, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 356, fn. 2 .)
Baxter, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784621. Public record. Not legal advice.