People v. Reyes

Decision Date30 March 2016
Docket NumberD069277
Citation200 Cal.Rptr.3d 584,246 Cal.App.4th 62
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leonel Lopez REYES, Defendant and Appellant.

Jerome P. Wallingford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr.and Stacy Alicia Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

O'ROURKE, J.

A jury convicted Leonel Lopez Reyes of forcible oral copulation (Pen.Code,1§ 288a, subd. (c)(2); count 1), forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); count 2), lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 3), and first degree burglary (§ 459; count 6). The jury found true allegations that the crimes of counts 1 and 2 occurred during the commission of a first degree burglary. (§ 667.61, subd. (b), (e).) The jury also found true allegations under section 667.61, subdivision (l ) that Reyes committed the crimes of counts 1 and 2 during the commission of a burglary with the intent to commit those crimes, and that the victim, Daniela R., was age 14 or older but under the age of 18 (§ 667.61, subd. (l)).2 The trial court sentenced Reyes to eight years plus one consecutive term of life without the possibility of parole, consisting of life without the possibility of parole for the special findings under section 667.61, subdivision (l ), the upper term of eight years for the count 3 offense, a concurrent midterm of four years for count 6, and 15–year–to–life terms on counts 1 and 2 pursuant to section 667.61, subdivisions (b) and (e) stayed under section 654.

Reyes contends the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by arguing for the first time in rebuttal the relevance of evidence that Daniela was gay on the issue of consent, and also by explaining the reasonable doubt standard in such a way as to dilute the People's burden of proof in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Reyes further contends his sentence of life without the possibility of parole for committing two forcible sex offenses violates the proscriptions in the federal and California Constitutions against cruel and unusual punishment, and his counsel was prejudicially ineffective for failing to object on this ground under the California Constitution. In a supplemental brief, Reyes finally contends the trial court sentenced him under section 667.61, subdivision (l ) in counts 1 and 2 under the mistaken belief it had no discretion to impose a lesser sentence. He asks this court to set aside the sentences in counts 1 and 2 and remand the case for the trial court to exercise its discretion to either strike or not strike the findings made under that subdivision.

The People ask that we order the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the jury's true findings on the allegations under section 667.61, subdivision (l ) attached to counts 1 and 2 as well as the court's oral pronouncement of judgment on those counts, and to indicate that Reyes was sentenced under that section. Reyes agrees, and we conclude the abstract of judgment should be modified to reflect those changes. As so modified, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prosecution Evidence

Because Reyes does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of his convictions, we briefly summarize his offenses. Where necessary to detail the facts relevant to Reyes's appellate contentions or to determine prejudice, we do so at that point in the opinion.

From late 2008 to about the middle of 2010, Daniela lived with her mother and sister in a house that they shared with Reyes, Reyes's wife and three children. In 2010, the families moved into separate apartments. Reyes at times borrowed from and repaid money to Daniela's mother.

In June 2011, Reyes owed $100 to Daniela's mother, who expected him to repay it. On the afternoon of June 22, 2011, Daniela was home when Reyes knocked at their door. She hesitated and did not want to open the door because of an incident that had occurred in their prior house: Reyes had pulled her off a couch where she had been sitting with his son and Daniela thought he was just playing a game, but he started to put his hand inside her shorts and underwear. Daniela nevertheless opened the door for Reyes, who told her he was there to repay money. She opened the outside security door, took the money, and started to close the door but Reyes pulled it open and walked inside. Reyes closed all of the doors while Daniela tried to back away. When she backed into the wall, Reyes proceeded to pull Daniela toward him. He eventually picked Daniela up, put his face between her breasts, then pushed her onto a couch where he tried to kiss her, removed her shorts and underwear, orally copulated her while holding her arms down, and had intercourse with her. Afterwards, Reyes gave Daniela $20, told her not to tell anyone, and left. Crying and having difficulty speaking, Daniela eventually related what had happened to a friend who told her father, who told Daniela's mother.

A sexual assault examination showed evidence of Reyes's sperm consistent with his DNA profile in Daniela's vagina. A physical examination of Daniela was within normal limits; it revealed no sex assault-related injuries and therefore there were no findings.

Defense Evidence

Reyes testified that on June 22, 2011, after he gave Daniela the money he owed her mother, Daniela wanted to "play" and jumped on his back when he was about to leave. He claimed she removed her shorts and underwear and they had consensual oral and vaginal sex. Reyes denied holding Daniela's hands down during the acts. He testified that while he knew having sex with someone who was 14 years old was against the law in the United States, it was not a problem in Mexico and he did it because he was sexually attracted to her. Reyes admitted lying to police about his whereabouts that afternoon.

DISCUSSION
I. Claims of Prosecutor Misconduct

Reyes complains that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in two separate instances. First, he contends she engaged in misconduct when she raised in her rebuttal closing argument for the first time the fact Daniela was gay so as to suggest Daniela would not consent to have sex with him. He maintains the prosecutor did not discuss consent in her argument in chief, but waited until rebuttal in order to make it impossible for his defense counsel to respond to this contested issue. He argues this conduct violated both federal and state Constitutions and rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, requiring reversal under the Chapman(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705) standard of harmless error.

Second, Reyes contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in such a way that tended to reduce the prosecution's burden of proving the charged offenses. He maintains this error, combined with the other instance of misconduct, cumulatively resulted in prejudice to him because they " 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' "

A. Standard of Review

" ' " 'A prosecutor's conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the trial court or the jury.' " ' " (People v. Charles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 308, 327, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 282, 349 P.3d 990.) " ' "A defendant's conviction will not be reversed for prosecutorial misconduct" that violates state law, however, "unless it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached without the misconduct." ' [Citation.] Bad faith on the prosecutor's part is not a prerequisite to finding prosecutorial misconduct under state law. [Citation.] In fact, our Supreme Court has stated, ' "[T]he term prosecutorial 'misconduct' is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind. A more apt description of the transgression is prosecutorial error." ' " (People v. Lloyd (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 49, 60–61, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 245.)

B. Claim of Misconduct in Arguing in Rebuttal Closing That Daniela Was Gay and Therefore Did Not Consent

1. Background

During Daniela's cross-examination, defense counsel asked about Daniela's relationship with her mother, to which Daniela responded it was good "about certain things" but not others given her mother's different opinions. Defense counsel pressed the issue, eliciting Daniela's admission that she was gay, and her testimony that she did not think that was something her mother wanted to know about. Defense counsel then sought to question Daniela about what she meant by earlier testimony concerning her discussion with friends about "how [she] wanted it to happen," but the prosecutor objected on grounds of the rape shield law3 that the questioning was "[g]etting into her sexual orientation" and "how she wants sex to happen." The court sustained the objection, ruling the evidence's probative value was outweighed by prejudice and undue consumption of time under Evidence Code section 352.

During the People's closing arguments, the prosecutor pointed out to the jury that for purposes of counts 1 and 2, forcible oral copulation and forcible rape, one of the elements was that the victim did not consent. She then argued, "So what do we know from Daniela? Daniela told us that the defendant orally copulated [her] forcefully. She said that she didn't want to have any sexual relations with him. She told him, 'No.' She told him to leave. She told him, 'Stop.' She was not a willing active...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 2021
    ...over somewhat into a forbidden area; the departure from propriety must be a substantial one.’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Reyes (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 62, 74, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 584.) "[A] prosecutor is justified in making comments in rebuttal, perhaps otherwise improper, which are fairly respons......
  • People v. Avila
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 2020
    ...thereby forfeiting the claim on appeal. However, we have the discretion to address the merits. (See, e.g., People v. Reyes (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 62, 86, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 153 P.3d 282.)13 The Eighth Amendment of the......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2018
    ...show counsel was not constitutionally ineffective by failing to make a futile or meritless objection." ( People v. Reyes (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 62, 86, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 ( Reyes ).)B. Scope of the Trial Court's Authority and the Necessity for Remand Baker argues that the trial court misun......
  • People v. Cadena
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 2019
    ...sentences imposed under the One Strike law under circumstances involving more heinous crimes. (See, e.g., People v. Reyes (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 62, 68-70, 87-88, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 [defendant committed forcible rape and oral copulation against a minor during a burglary]; People v. Alvarad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Closing argument
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...be futile or insufficient to cure the harm. People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 395, 462, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672; People v. Reyes (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 62, 77, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584. In the absence of an objection and request for an admonishment to the jury, the error is generally forfeited......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Cal. Rptr. 3d 25, §1:380 Reyes, People v. (2019) 35 Cal. App. 5th 538, 247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247, §§9:110, 11:10 Reyes, People v. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 62, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584, §21:110 Reyes, People v. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 214, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 903, §9:10 Reynolds v. Superior Court (19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT