## Facts

- Deonte Santos engaged in conduct involving sexual exploitation of a child under age 14, using an interstate communications facility as part of the course of conduct.
- Federal authorities prosecuted Santos and obtained convictions for offenses requiring proof of an interstate-transport/communications nexus and commercial sexual conduct (including sex trafficking).
- California later charged Santos based on the same course of conduct under state statutes prohibiting lewd acts with a child under 14 and procuring a child to engage in a lewd act.
- Unlike the federal offenses, the California charges did not require proof of commercial sex activity or an interstate-commerce element.
- Santos moved to dismiss the California prosecution on Double Jeopardy Clause grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
- Santos was convicted in state court and appealed, renewing his double-jeopardy challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred California from prosecuting Santos for lewd acts with a child under 14 and procuring a child to engage in a lewd act after federal convictions based on the same underlying conduct.
2. Whether the dual-sovereignty doctrine and differences in the federal and state statutory elements permitted successive prosecutions.

## Decision

- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss.
- The court held that successive federal and state prosecutions did not violate double jeopardy because the prosecutions were brought by separate sovereigns.
- The court also relied on the fact that the state and federal offenses required proof of different elements, including that the federal statutes required an interstate nexus and commercial sexual conduct, while the California statutes did not.
- The court found no basis to treat the state prosecution as a sham or tool of the federal government.

## Legal Principles

- Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns (federal and state) for the same conduct generally do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- Offenses are not the same for double-jeopardy purposes when each offense requires proof of an element the other does not.
- A subsequent prosecution may be barred only in rare circumstances where one sovereign’s prosecution is merely a sham or cover for the other; absent evidence of such collusion, the doctrine applies.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Santos’s California convictions, holding that double jeopardy did not bar the state prosecution following federal convictions because the United States and California are separate sovereigns and the state offenses were legally distinct from the federal offenses.


People v. Santos, No. C063495, 2011 WL 1816946 (Cal. Ct. App. May 12, 2011)