Opinion
E052466
09-28-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY LEE WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 publicatio or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. SWF021186)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Albert J. Wojcik, Judge. Affirmed.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On March 12, 2008, an information charged defendant and appellant Randy Lee Wright (defendant) with forcible lewd acts upon a child under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 1 & 6); oral copulation with a minor under section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 2 & 7); sodomy with a person under the age of 14 years with an age difference of more than 10 years under section 286, subdivision (c)(1) (count 3); and aggravated sexual assault, rape and oral copulation, under section 269, subdivision (a)(1) and (4) (counts 4, 5 & 8). The forcible offenses also were alleged to have involved multiple victims, an aggravating circumstance under section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5). The information further alleged that the offenses involved vulnerable victims, abuse of a position of trust and confidence, and molestation of two victims between ages 3 and 13— sentencing factors in aggravation of the offenses.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On March 14, 2008, defendant was arraigned. He entered pleas of not guilty to the substantive offenses, and denied the special allegations.
A trial by jury commenced on June 29, 2010. On the fifth day of trial, July 8, the People rested. The following trial day, the People filed an amended information. The amendment made a technical correction in two counts to name defendant as the charged defendant. The same day, the case concluded in its entirety; the jury was instructed and retired to deliberate. The jury returned verdicts on the same day. The jury found defendant guilty as charged and found true the special allegations.
On December 7, 2010, the trial court sentenced defendant to 75 years to life (consecutive terms of 15 years to life on each of counts 1, 4, 5, 6 & 8), plus nine years four months (for counts 2, 3 & 7). The trial court struck two of the special allegation findings under the one strike law on the grounds that the charged offenses were outside the purview of the statute.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant, born in 1958, fathered two daughters, Jane Doe No. 1 (born in 1991), and Jane Doe No. 2 (born in 1993).
Between 1996 and 2000, the family lived in two residences; first in Winchester and then in Perris. Both girls were molested when the family lived in Winchester. The molestation of Jane Doe No. 2 (hereafter Jane Doe 2) ceased when the family moved to Perris; defendant promised Jane Doe No. 1 (hereafter Jane Doe 1) that he would stop molesting her sibling.
A. Acts in Winchester
When the family lived in Winchester, defendant orally copulated both girls. The acts began when Jane Doe 1 was five years old, and Jane Doe 2 was two or three years old, when the girls showered together. On two or three occasions, when the two girls exited the shower, defendant followed them into their room and orally copulated them after lying them down on the bed on their towels.
Later, at separate times, defendant made the girls orally copulate him. Jane Doe 1 recalled this happening on one occasion and recalled defendant asking her to kiss his penis. Jane Doe 2 thought she was required to orally copulate defendant once or, possibly, a few times. Each time, defendant grabbed her head and placed it on his penis.
Other acts also occurred. Once, defendant rubbed Jane Doe 2's "private part" with his penis. Both she and defendant were clothed at the time. Jane Doe 2 did not recall whether defendant had placed his bare penis on her private part when she was in the first grade.
At various times, Jane Doe 1 was required to straddle defendant and move around. Sometimes, defendant held her arms to help her rock back and forth. Defendant's penis was hard, but he did not ejaculate.
B. Acts in Perris
The family moved to Perris when Jane Doe 1 was approximately 10 years old, and Jane Doe 2 was approximately seven years old. Defendant sodomized Jane Doe 1 three times. Defendant used lubricant to make it easier.
Jane Doe 1 estimated that she was molested in various ways she described on more than 10 occasions from the time she was five years of age. When Jane Doe 1 was 12 or 13 years old, defendant penetrated her vagina with his penis. It hurt Jane Doe 1; defendant apologized. It never occurred again. The molestation stopped when she began to menstruate, when she was 14 years old.
Apart from the physical acts, defendant sometimes watched pornographic videos and Jane Doe 1 was required to watch them with defendant.
C. Disclosures
When Jane Doe 1 was in the sixth grade, she realized that the acts with her father were wrong. She so told defendant and refused to cooperate in the acts. Defendant persisted and cajoled Jane Doe 1 into acquiescence. Defendant told her not to reveal their secret to their mother or he would never see them again. Jane Doe 1 believed her father and maintained the secret. She did not want to hurt her mother.
Jane Doe 2 also did not tell her mother what had occurred because her father told her not to say anything; she did not want to hurt her mother. In addition, she remained silent because defendant had struck her on a number of occasions; she believed that defendant would hurt her if she said anything. She also overheard her father hitting and injuring her mother on one occasion.
The girls finally told their mother about the molestations in approximately March of 2007, sometime after defendant had moved away and the parents had divorced.
D. Defendant's Admissions
Sidney Wilson, a four-time felon and one of defendant's cellmates, claimed that defendant made admissions to him in September of 2008, after attending a bible study class. Defendant admitted that he orally copulated his daughters after helping them out of the shower. He also admitted that he had both his daughters orally copulate him, and that he ejaculated into his oldest daughter's mouth once. He said that he penetrated his oldest daughter with his penis when she was 13 or 14 years old, and he sodomized her.
E. Expert Evidence
Two experts testified. The first was Jody Ward, a psychologist and expert in child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Ward testified that certain behaviors are common in children who have been victims of sexual abuse, including keeping the abuse a secret, feeling helpless to prevent it, accommodating the abuse by adopting a coping mechanism, delaying disclosure of the abuse, and retracting the disclosure once it is made. Ward further indicated that young children frequently are unable to recall specific dates and times, but are able to recall the abusive conduct itself.
The second expert was Dr. Susan Horowitz. She testified regarding physical findings in child abuse cases. Horowitz testified that the absence of physical or mental findings does not mean abuse had not occurred. She explained that physical findings are unusual. Typically, children examined over 72 hours after a penetrating molestation act exhibit no medical findings. She opined no physical examinations were conducted in this case because the molestations were reported when both girls were past puberty and puberty masks most injuries.
F. Defense Case
The children's mother testified that the girls told her of the abuse in March of 2007. At the time, Jane Doe 1 was 16 years old and Jane Doe 2 was 14 years old. The girls had little or no contact with their father after approximately September of 2005.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his five-page handwritten supplemental brief, defendant, in essence, contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the witnesses did not tell the truth and the incidents did not occur. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
We hereby address defendant's contention. Our review of any claim of insufficiency of the evidence is limited. "'"When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—i.e., evidence that is credible and of solid value—from which a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."'" (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 848-849.) We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) In this case, a review of the record supports defendant's convictions. Nonetheless, defendant challenges the credibility of the witnesses. However, in deciding whether substantial evidence supports the decision of the trial court, we do not resolve issues of credibility or evidentiary conflicts. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) Resolution of conflicting evidence and credibility issues is for the jury to decide. (People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1331.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKinster
Acting P.J.
We concur:
Richli
J.
Codrington
J.