California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Randle, C066313 (Cal. App. 2012):
assuming counsel's performance fell below the requisite standard, it was not prejudicial. As the People correctly point out, the prison records do not undercut defendant's admission that he saw the victim in May 2006 after he was released on parole. The information could and most certainly would have been properly amended to conform to the evidence presented via those records. (Pen. Code, 1009; Pitts, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at pp. 904-905; see also People v. Wilder (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 742, 749 [changing alleged date of charged offense does not change the offense charged for purposes of Penal Code section 1009].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.