Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP048242, Jacki C. Brown, Judge.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
OPINION
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
We appointed counsel to represent Solomon A. on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
In January 2014, following a contested hearing, the court found true the allegation that Solomon had committed two counts of annoying or molesting a child under 18 (Pen. Code, § 647.6, subd. (a)(1).) After considering the probation report, the court declared the minor a ward and placed him on probation with various terms and conditions. After the hearing, Solomon told the probation officer that neither incident ever happened and he did not know why the victims would lie.
Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The record reflects that R.H., 11 years old at the time, was with her friends in a park in Rancho Santa Margarita when Solomon, a friend of one of R.H.’s friends, arrived at the park. Solomon, who was 16 years old at the time, asked her to step apart from the others, but she refused. Solomon also asked R.H. if he could “finger” her; she did not know what that meant, but said no and went to one of her friends. Solomon asked R.H. not to tell anyone what he had asked, and also asked her how one of her friends, M.H., who was 12 years old at the time, might respond to the same question.
R.H. was upset, and told M.H. what Solomon had said. M.H. told the others in the group. R.H. believed Solomon knew she was in elementary school because he asked about a talent show at her school. R.H. and the others with her went home.
Several days later, R.H. and M.H. were with their friends at the park and encountered Solomon again. R.H. and her companions wanted to get away from him, and said they needed to go home, but went to the nearby middle school instead. Solomon appeared at the school. R.H., M.H., and another girl hid behind the staircase when they saw him passing by. M.H. thought he had left, stepped away and saw him, and then Solomon saw her. Solomon approached her and asked her if she went to the middle school; M.H. said that she did and was in sixth grade. Solomon asked her if she wanted to “see his dick, ” and she told him no. He asked if she was sure, and she said she was. He told her not to tell anyone else or “someone is going to get hurt.” M.H. was upset, in tears, and told R.H. what Solomon had said.
“‘The primary purpose of [section 647a] is the “protection of children from interference by sexual offenders, and the apprehension, segregation and punishment of the latter.” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 868.) Section 647.6 “does not require a touching [citation] but does require (1) conduct a ‘“normal person would unhesitatingly be irritated by”’ [citations], and (2) conduct ‘“motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest”’ in the victim [citations].” (People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 289.)
Here, there was more than sufficient evidence Solomon committed the charged offense. It was undisputed that victims were 11 and 12 years old at the time of the incident, and that Solomon was the one who approached them. Approaching two young girls in a park and a school and asking them sexual questions was conduct that would unhesitatingly irritate a normal person. The testimony of the two girls was consistent on all pertinent points. “As with other facts, the direct testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a finding unless the testimony is physically impossible or its falsity is apparent ‘without resorting to inferences or deductions.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 608-609.) Moreover, the questions themselves indicate the requisite sexual interest. Thus, we find the evidence sufficient to conclude the allegations were true.
We have examined the record and found no other arguable issue. Both of the young witnesses testified without objection as to whether they were capable of testifying under oath. There were notably few evidentiary objections raised during trial, and none of critical importance.
Solomon was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J.IKOLA, J.