From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ruiz

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Sep 11, 2008
No. E045460 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVA027122, Ingrid Uhler, Judge.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Defendant.


OPINION

RAMIREZ P.J.

On June 17, 2006, sometime between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., Michael Flores observed defendant ride his bicycle down the street and move to the side of his neighbor’s home. Defendant was fully clothed at the time.

Both the complaint and the information refer to the victim of the count 5 charge of criminal threats as “Michael Torres.” However, the preliminary hearing transcript and the minute orders of July 31, 2007, and September 5, 2007, refer to him as “Michael Flores.” We acknowledge the discrepancy, but have no way of knowing which surname is correct. Nonetheless, for the remainder of the opinion we elect to refer to him as Flores.

Then 15-year-old Jane Doe went to sleep in her room around 2:00 a.m. that morning. She left the window open with the screen attached and a fan on the sill. She awoke sometime around 2:45 a.m. to see defendant coming through her window. She pushed herself out of bed, landed on the floor, and started screaming. Defendant crawled on top of her and put his hand over her mouth. He told her he was not going to hurt her, but was, instead, trying to help her. Defendant then attempted to pull down her shorts. Doe struggled with defendant the entire time. Defendant, apparently dissuaded from persisting by Doe’s resistance, exited the room through the window. Doe noted as he left that he was naked.

Flores heard a scream and witnessed defendant run out from the side of his neighbor’s home while no longer wearing a shirt. Defendant got back on his bike and rode off.

Doe’s father (father) was awakened that night by his wife who informed him that someone had attempted to rape Doe. He ran into her room where he noticed that the window screen had been ripped open. Father ran outside where he noticed Flores. He asked Flores whether he had seen anyone run away from his house. Flores responded that he had. Father drove off, with Flores in the passenger seat, in pursuit of defendant.

They eventually caught up with defendant and verbally confronted him. Defendant made gang signs, yelled out a gang name, cursed, made a motion as if attempting to retrieve a weapon from his pocket or back, and threatened them. Out of fear, Doe’s father relented in the avidity of his pursuit, but continued to tail defendant at a distance. Nevertheless, they eventually lost sight of him.

An evidence technician lifted a partial palm print from the top of the box fan in Doe’s window. It came back as a match to defendant. Doe, father, and Flores all picked defendant out of a six-pack photographic lineup. After his arrest and waiver of his Miranda rights, Officer Thomas Yarrington asked defendant if he knew why he was being arrested. Defendant replied that it was “because he was naked at some girl’s house.”

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

In a further interview, defendant admitted pulling back the screen, moving the fan, and entering the residence while naked. Defendant maintained that he randomly selected the home in the hopes that there would be a female inside that he could use to masturbate to. Defendant described Doe. He reported that she woke up, screamed, and fell off the bed after which he covered her mouth with his hand. Defendant admitted he rode off on his bike without his shirt on. Defendant then wrote a letter of apology to Doe for trying to masturbate to her, though he expressed he was not a rapist.

The People charged defendant by information with attempted forcible rape, (count 1, Pen. Code §§ 664/261, subd. (a)(2)), first degree burglary, (count 2, § 459) assault with intent to commit a felony, (count 3, § 220), and two counts of criminal threats (counts 4 & 5, § 422) committed against father and Flores respectively. Defendant pled no contest to the count 3 offense. In return, defendant was sentenced to the upper term of six years and the remaining counts were dismissed. The parties stipulated that the preliminary hearing transcript contains the factual basis for the plea.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: McKINSTER J., MILLER J.


Summaries of

People v. Ruiz

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Sep 11, 2008
No. E045460 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM RUIZ, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Sep 11, 2008

Citations

No. E045460 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2008)