People v. Vega CA4/3 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/23/14 P. v. Vega CA4/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                         G050097
    v.                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 12CF1176)
    JUAN MANUEL VEGA,                                                      OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John
    Conley, Judge. Affirmed.
    Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
    and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    *               *               *
    Appellant Juan Manuel Vega was convicted by a jury of sexual assaults
    upon his two daughters, ages eight and seven. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in
    prison, comprised of consecutive sentences of 25 years to life sentences on one count
    pertaining to each girl.
    We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a brief
    which set forth in concise and well-articulated detail the facts of the case. Vega was
    invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him, but did not. Under
    the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues
    that might result in some kind of amelioration of Vega’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    .) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which Vega
    would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail.
    We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. This is not
    surprising. In fact, it is what we find in the vast majority of cases in which appellate
    counsel files a Wende brief. Even the most cynical observer of the appellate system
    would have to recognize that appellate counsel has a financial incentive for finding
    issues. The simple matter is counsel makes more money if he/she finds an issue that is
    arguable than if he/she does not. So while it sometimes happens that an appellate court
    will find issues after appellate counsel has thrown in the towel, it is unusual. This case is
    not unusual – at least not in any way that would benefit Vega. We find no error in his
    trial and affirm the judgment against him.
    FACTS
    Appellate counsel has provided a fine description of the facts of the case.
    We can find no errors or omissions in that description, so, rather than try to improve upon
    it, we reproduce it here:
    “Prosecution Evidence
    “Appellant fathered three children with Lucia C. (“Lucia”), two daughters
    named N. and Samantha, and a son named Juan. At the time of trial in 2014, N. was
    2
    eight years old. In 2012, appellant, Lucia and their three children were all living together
    in one bedroom of a shared two bedroom apartment in Santa Ana.
    “Lucia testified that on the evening of April 20, 2012, appellant asked her
    to go buy something at a store, which she did. When Lucia returned from the store, she
    entered their bedroom and saw appellant standing near the closet next to N., whose pants
    were down and who was pulling up her underwear. Lucia, who had never before
    suspected any sexual abuse of her children, immediately asked appellant what was going
    on, and appellant said nothing had happened. Lucia then pulled N. aside and asked her
    what had happened. N. appeared scared and was initially reluctant to say anything, but
    eventually said that appellant had done something to her that was of a sexual nature.
    Lucia then immediately called 911, and a recording of that call was played for the jury.
    “When police arrived at their residence that evening in response to the 911
    call regarding what Lucia saw occur between appellant and N., the police conducted
    recorded interviews of both N. and Samantha based on their training and experience, as
    well as based on what N. first told them. A few weeks later, on May 16, 2012, both N.
    and Samantha were interviewed again at a CAST facility by a social worker who
    specializes in sexual abuse crimes involving children.
    “N. and Samantha both testified that what they told police at their
    apartment and the interviewer at the subsequent CAST interview about appellant
    touching them was the truth. A recording of each of these interviews was played for the
    jury.1
    “In her police and CAST interviews, N. said that before her mom came
    home on the night the police arrived at their apartment, appellant took off her pants,
    masturbated himself, touched the inside of her vagina with his penis, and inserted his
    penis into her anus, which hurt. N. said appellant had touched her private parts a lot of
    “1         Both N. and Samantha were very young at the time of their interviews, and they understandably
    had difficulty at times articulating and explaining the events in question.
    3
    times previously and would always give her a dollar afterwards, although she was
    uncertain and unable to articulate when or how many times this occurred. N. also
    reported seeing appellant touching her sister Samantha.
    “During her police and CAST interviews, Samantha described appellant
    placing his hard penis inside her mouth and inside her vagina, which felt bad and hurt.
    Samantha said she remembered appellant touching her on different days, and that
    appellant inserted his penis in both her mouth and vagina on the day the police came to
    her residence.
    “DNA testing was performed on N., Samantha, and appellant. No semen
    was found on either of the girls. Vestibule and vulva swab samples were taken from both
    girls, and no foreign DNA was initially found on any of those samples.
    “Because a female’s vaginal and anal openings tend to contain very high
    concentrations of their own DNA that can mask the presence of other DNA, a special
    type of DNA testing called Y-typing was also performed that is able to exclude female
    DNA and isolate the presence of any male Y chromosomes. Upon such testing, it was
    determined the vestibule and vulva swab samples from N. contained some areas of
    possible male DNA, which was consistent with appellant’s DNA to a frequency of 1 out
    of every 4000 males in the general population.
    “A penile swab obtained from appellant revealed the presence of foreign
    DNA, which foreign DNA could not have come from either N. or Samantha individually,
    but could have potentially come from a mixture of both N. and Samantha’s DNA.
    “Appellant was interviewed by police on the night the police came to their
    apartment in response to the 911 call, and a recording of that interview was played for the
    jury. Appellant initially and repeatedly denied touching either girl in any sexual manner.
    Subsequently, appellant admitted touching both girls on their vaginal and anal areas with
    his hands, but denied any penetration. Appellant explained that he was himself molested
    as a child while in Mexico, and he sometimes got uncontrollable urges to touch his
    4
    daughters in a sexual manner. Subsequently, appellant admitted anal penetration of N.
    with his finger on one occasion when his finger slipped inside her anus. Appellant
    continued to deny any penetration with his penis, any oral copulation, or any other
    penetration.”
    DISCUSSION
    This was not a lengthy trial. After pretrial motions, 10 witnesses were
    called in what was essentially two days. Defendant did not testify, called no witnesses,
    and offered no evidence. But even the shortest trial presents evidentiary and procedural
    issues the trial judge must resolve, and even when appellate counsel is unable to identify
    any judicial calls that may arguably have resulted in prejudicial error, it is incumbent
    upon us to review the record ourselves.
    We have done so in this case and find none. Mr. Vega did not make his
    decision not to testify until the conclusion of the prosecution case. Its consequences were
    carefully explained to him both before the trial and at the point at which counsel
    informed the court he would not be testifying. By all appearances, it was a thoughtful
    process culminating in an informed and well-advised decision. We find he clearly and
    intelligently waived his right to testify.
    The court correctly resolved issues pertaining to the 911 call made by the
    children’s mother and questions pertaining to the fresh complaint doctrine. Defendant’s
    own statements were properly admissible against him. Counsel and the court succeeded
    in clarifying the information to remove ambiguity and properly screened and instructed
    the jury for Spanish speakers who would be required to accept translations of Spanish
    statements. References to appellant’s prior domestic violence case were properly
    excluded.
    5
    The trial itself was uneventful and the sentencing decision well within the
    discretion of the trial judge. Appellant’s representation at trial raises no issues. We
    simply cannot find anything here that might provide a basis for an appellate argument.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    BEDSWORTH, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    O’LEARY, P. J.
    MOORE, J.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: G050097

Filed Date: 12/23/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021