Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA107264
THE COURT:Michael A. Gonzales (appellant) appeals from the judgment following a jury trial that resulted in his conviction of 15 counts of lewd acts upon a child in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in state prison. The sentence consisted of the high term of eight years in count 1 and one-third the midterm, or two years, in each of counts 2 through 4, all of which are to be served consecutively. The trial court imposed concurrent terms of eight years in the remaining counts.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. On September 15, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. On October 13, 2009, we denied appellant’s request for new counsel and granted him an extension of time to file a supplemental brief to December 14, 2009. No response has been received to date, and the matter was submitted on January 6, 2010.
The record shows that appellant’s daughter, S., who was 26 at the time of trial, testified that appellant had engaged in sexual conduct with her at various times during the period from March 12, 1994, through March 11, 1997, when she was in middle school. Appellant and his wife separated and divorced when S. was in elementary school, and S. and her brother lived mainly with her father. At times she went to stay with her mother or a cousin. S. remembered that at some point before camp in her sixth grade year, appellant began inserting his fingers in her vagina. She pretended to be asleep. At times appellant would enter the bathroom when S. was using it. He would also get into the shower with her, claiming to be in a hurry. He rubbed her chest. He once shaved her pubic area with a trimmer. He placed her hand on his penis and made her rub it up and down about three times. She recalled that he ejaculated once. After an incident would occur, just enough time would pass for S. to get it out of her mind, and it would occur again. An incident would occur every week or so. S. told one girlfriend that her father molested her, but told her not to tell anyone. S.’s friend remembered being told about the molestation, and she never reported it to anyone.
The jury found true the statute of limitations allegation under Penal Code section 803, subdivision (f).
After S. graduated and was on her own, she told her cousin Elaine about the molestations. Elaine said her sister had been molested by appellant as well. This prompted S. to contact the police.
In August 2008, S. reported abuse by both her father and grandfather at the Norwalk sheriff’s station. A detective later interviewed her. At the behest of the detective, S. made a pretext call to her father that was recorded and monitored by the detective. During the call, appellant made certain admissions.
S. also reported that her paternal grandfather kissed her and put his tongue in her mouth twice. He gave her money afterwards. She told her cousins and they acted as if it were not a big deal. She thought that if they did not believe her about her grandfather, they would not believe her about her father.
Detective Scott McCormick testified that he had investigated about 150 cases of sexual abuse. In his experience, 40 to 50 percent of cases involve delayed reporting. S. told him at first that the abuse began in third or fourth grade, but later said it began while she was in middle school.
Appellant told Detective McCormick that he agreed with the things S. accused him of during the telephone call because she felt hurt. He said that when S. was young, she was molested by a tenant of the house in front of the house where his family lived.
Deputy Dulce Scira took S.’s report. S. said she was molested between the ages of eight and thirteen. She could not remember if her father ejaculated. She reported only one incident of his entering the shower and said it was the last incident.
Appellant’s father testified that he always gave his grandchildren money. S. had never accused him of kissing her improperly. He could not believe it when the police told him of S.’s accusations, and they were not true.
Appellant testified that S. did not like the rules he imposed about when to come home. He never went into the bathroom while S. was inside. S. would lie in appellant’s bed and watch videos when she was very young. Once she wanted to come in his bed when she was in ninth or tenth grade because she had watched a scary move. Appellant told her she had to sleep in her own room because she was too old to be in his bed. S. was molested by a neighbor’s child when they lived in Bellflower, an incident that caused the family to move. S. had also been groped at school. He believed she was referring to the scary movie incident during the phone call, or else the Bellflower incident, or the high school incident. S. was angry at him for a long time when he denied her from being able to jump in his bed. He felt he had been mean in doing that. He believed her reference to his touching her was to his “whacking [her] in the mouth” because she or her friends used foul language.
Appellant was at work and was cleaning up a construction job site when S. called him. He could not hear well and had to direct his workmen in their work. He dropped the phone and had to clean it. They were all in a rush and it was confusing. He just wanted her to keep talking because he was glad to hear from her and he missed her. He wanted to get his job done and arrange a conversation with S. and her mother to resolve what was on S.’s mind. He never molested anyone. In the phone call, he just agreed with some of her statements, but he did not molest his daughter. He did not think she was accusing him of molesting her.
In rebuttal, Detective McCormick testified that appellant did not say he was confused during his conversation with S. He did not say he could not hear her or that he was busy at work.
After examining the entire record, we are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.