United States v. Alejandro Gomez-Mendez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that defendant could not have been convicted as an accessory after the fact to statutory rape when he was only charged under Penal Code section 261.5, which unlike Vehicle Code section 10851(a
• concluding that defendant could not have been convicted as an accessory after the fact to statutory rape when he was only charged under Penal Code section 261.5, which unlike Vehicle Code section 10851(a
• concluding that the “full range of conduct proscribed by Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(d)” meets the definition of “statutory rape”
• concluding that “statutory rape is distinct from the common law offense”
• concluding that defendant could not have been convicted as an accessory after the fact to statutory rape when he was only charged under Penal Code section 261.5, which unlike Vehicle Code section 10851(a
• rejecting argument that a conviction for statutory rape under Penal Code § 261.5 is overbroad because it includes accessory after the fact liability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).