People v. Valdez
| Decision Date | 22 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | F074436 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIRO ISABEL VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
Joseph Shipp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo- Ramiro Isabel Valdez (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of committing a lewd act on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1, 4, 5), aggravated sexual assault (rape) of a child (id., § 269, subd. (a)(1); count 2), aggravated sexual assault (oral copulation) of a child (id., § 269, subd. (a)(4); count 3), sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger (id., § 288.7, subd. (b); count 6), and oral copulation with a child 10 years of age or younger (id., § 288.7, subd. (b); count 7). As to counts 1, 4, and 5, the jury further found defendant had substantial sexual conduct with a victim under the age of 14 years (id., § 1203.066), and that the offense was committed against multiple victims (id., § 667.61, subds. (a), (e)(4)). Defendant was sentenced to a total of 135 years to life in prison, and ordered to pay various fees, fines, and assessments.
On appeal, we hold: (1) Defendant is not entitled to reversal based on the trial court's admission of, or jury instruction concerning, evidence of uncharged misconduct (Evid. Code,1 §§ 352, 1108); (2) Any error concerning the testimony of the nurse who performed sexual assault examinations on the victims was harmless; (3) The trial court did not err in admitting evidence concerning, and the prosecutor did not commit misconduct questioning defendant about, why a social worker went to defendant's home; (4) Any error concerning the exclusion of defense evidence was harmless; (5) Defendant's statement to police was properly admitted; and (6) Defendant is not entitled to reversal based on a theory of cumulative prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.
Victim 1 was born in 2002.2 She was 13 years old at the time of trial. Defendant was her father. At some point, the family lived in Texas. They then moved to Fresno, where they lived with defendant's mother. The grandmother's house, which was "[s]ort of" a trailer, had three bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, and two bathrooms. Living there were Victim 1, her four siblings, defendant, the grandmother, and a few of Victim 1's cousins — in all, about 12 people. Defendant, Victim 1, and Victim 1's siblings all slept in one room. Defendant would not let Victim 1 out of her room. She always had to be where he was. He would not allow her to go to school. He did not tell her why he kept her so close to him.
When defendant and Victim 1 were alone in their room, defendant touched Victim 1's vagina. He took off his clothes and told Victim 1 to take off her pants and underwear. He then told her to suck his penis. Victim 1 complied, because she was afraid defendant would hit her if she did not obey. He had previously struck her on the legs with a belt and a hanger, because he wrongly thought she was having sex with her cousins.
On another occasion at the grandmother's house, Victim 1's sister, Victim 2, told Victim 1 that defendant had put his private part in Victim 2's mouth. Victim 2 was shaking and seemed upset.
Victim 1's mother visited the grandmother's house in April. Sometime after, defendant told Victim 1 to pull down her pants. He touched her vagina with his hand and told her to suck his penis.
On one occasion, in a room close to the kitchen at "Tia Linda's" house in Fresno, defendant told Victim 1 and Victim 2 to take off their clothes. Victim 1 was afraid he would do something if she did not comply. He made Victim 1 put her hand in Victim 2's vagina and Victim 2 put her hand in Victim 1's vagina, and he made them move their hands around. Defendant then touched Victim 1's vagina with his hand.
Another time at Tia Linda's house, defendant removed Victim 1's clothes and then his own. He touched her vagina and made her touch his penis.
On another occasion in Fresno, defendant told Victim 1 to take off her clothes. When she complied, he put his penis in her vagina and moved his body back and forth. It hurt. Victim 1 did not tell defendant to stop because she was afraid of him. Afterward, defendant gave Victim 1 a pregnancy test to take, because he thought she was pregnant.
When sheriff's deputies first talked to Victim 1 at her grandmother's house, she denied defendant had abused her. She was afraid of being separated from her family. Defendant had told her that if she told someone, they would all be separated and he would be in jail forever. She changed her mind about telling, because she knew it was the right thing to do. She wanted to be with her mother's side of the family in Texas.
Victim 2 was born in 2006. She was nine years old at the time of trial. Defendant abused her. He touched her "[b]ehind." At trial, she could not remember anything else that happened between her and defendant. When police officers talked to her, she also told them about her brother R. hurting her.
Ralph Vigil was the superintendent of the West Park Elementary School District. On May 2, 2014, he conducted a home visit with respect to Victim 1 and two of her siblings, because they had not been attending school. Defendant explained that the children were not in school because he had some medical conditions and was trying to deal with his medication. During the conversation, Victim 1 and one of the other children came out and sat down. Victim 1 was very quiet. At one point, defendant said,"She's done some bad things." Victim 1 bowed her head and covered her face with her hands.
Vigil told defendant that the children needed to be in school and were subject to being reported to Child Protective Services (CPS), based on neglect, if they were not there on Monday. Defendant said he understood the situation. When the children were not in school on Monday, a report was submitted to CPS concerning possible neglect and abuse. Vigil included abuse because of Victim 1's reaction to defendant's comment. She seemed very scared.
Steven Ridley was a social worker with the Department of Social Services. On May 17, 2014, he met Fresno County Sheriff's Deputies Chalmers and Beggs at a home in the 3300 block of West Church Avenue, because of information that a little girl was heard in the night saying, "No, stop," and that, although she was only 11 years old, she was taking a pregnancy test.
Upon arrival, deputies spoke to a man sitting out front, then another man inside. Victim 1 and Victim 2 were standing on the porch. Victim 1 denied being touched inappropriately by anyone, but she said she did take a pregnancy test her father had bought for her.3 Victim 1 denied being sexually active. Ridley explained that a doctor could tell whether that was true, then asked if she had had sex with anyone. Victim 1 said no, then maybe. She was crying and evasive.
Ridley and Chalmers then spoke with Victim 2. She said someone had touched her inappropriately, and pointed toward her vaginal area, which she called her "middle."She said her brother had touched her middle.4 When Ridley asked if anyone else had done so, she said her father had made her sister and her touch each other's middles. She said her father took the girls' hands and put them on each other. Victim 2 said that one time, her father put his middle in her mouth. She said the next day her throat was very sore and she could not speak. She also said that one night, they were in bed and her father told her to turn around and not look. He and Victim 1 were on the other side of the bed, and Victim 2 did not see what happened. She could feel the bed moving, however.
After talking with Victim 2, Chalmers brought Victim 1 over and told her that he thought she was not being as truthful with him as she should be. He started to reinterview her. She would start to tell a different story, then Victim 2 would correct her. Victim 1 started to cry a bit. She told Chalmers that she was afraid if she told him the truth, she would not be allowed to return to Texas.
Ridley then told Victim 1 what Victim 2 had said about their father making them touch each other. He asked if it was true. She said yes. Victim 1 said it happened at her tia's house. Victim 1 also talked about how one time when she and Victim 2 were sleeping in their father's room with him, he got on top of Victim 1 and put his middle part in her middle part. Victim 1 said it hurt and she told him to stop, but he would not. When she got up, she thought she was bleeding, so she went to the bathroom and "grabbed a pad." This happened at the residence on Church. Victim 1 thought it was in early May 2014. Victim 1 also related that while in Texas, defendant put his middle part in her middle part. She could not recall the exact date, but said it was sometime after they went to his boss's house. The Texas event was first, then the incident at the tia's house, then the incident at the Church residence. Both girls said that if they had a choice, they would rather go with their mother, who lived in Texas.
Ridley eventually saw defendant, who was sitting on a chair by the porch. Defendant did not make a lot of eye contact. It "seemed like he wasn't there." He was emotionless and had a very flat...
To continue reading
Request your trial