Opinion
E081674
04-24-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMAN MARTINEZ GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF2300325 Charles J. Koosed, Judge. Affirmed.
Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER, J.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Norman Martinez Garcia of two counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon victim 1 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a), counts 1 &8), aggravated sexual assault (rape) upon victim 1 (§ 269, subd. (a)(2), count 2)), oral copulation upon victim 1 (§287, subd. (c)(1), count 3), lewd or lascivious acts upon victim 2 (§ 288, subd. (a), counts 4), attempted lewd and lascivious acts upon victim 2 (§§ 664, 288, subd (a), count 5), sexual penetration of victim 2 (§ 289, subd. (j), count 6), and lewd or lascivious acts by force or fear upon victim 1 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), count 7).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
The jury also found that the victims of all the offenses committed by defendant were under the age of 14 years.
The jury additionally found true allegations that defendant took advantage of a position of trust and confidence with the victims (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(11)), that the victims were particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)), and that defendant committed an offense against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 100 years to life.
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: 1) whether substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts; and 2) whether the People afforded defendant proper notice they were seeking a sentence of 25 years to life pursuant to section 667.61.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
Defendant was the victims' stepfather. When victim 1 was nine or 10 years old, defendant put his hand behind her, pulled her close, and kissed her "[w]ith his tongue in [her] mouth." Another time when she was approximately the same age, defendant put his hand on her vagina underneath her underwear.
On a third occasion, when victim 1 was 12 years old, defendant texted her to come to his room. When she went to his room, defendant put his penis in her genitals while she was on all fours.
Defendant instructed and motioned victim 1 to put his penis in her mouth, which she did. He also put his mouth on her developing breasts.
When victim 2 was 11 or 12, defendant put his hand down her pants and rubbed her vagina for five to 10 minutes. A month afterward, she took a shower, wrapped herself in a towel, and went into her room. Defendant opened the door and attempted to remove her towel.
Six months later, when victim 2 was 11 or 12, defendant placed his hand inside her underwear and penetrated her vagina. During a pretextual call with victim 2, she asked defendant to apologize for touching her. Defendant "apologized for everything."
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. CODRINGTON J.