People v. Reyes

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ORACIO GUADALUPE REYES, Defendant and Appellant.

F083215

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

August 29, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, No VCF363250 Nathan G. Leedy, Judge.

Janet J. Gray, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, and Brook A. Bennigson Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

POOCHIGIAN, J.

Defendant and appellant Oracio Guadalupe Reyes (defendant) was convicted by a jury of 15 counts of committing a lewd act on a child aged 14 years or younger and three counts of oral copulation on a child aged 10 years or younger. The court sentenced defendant to a total term of 120 years to life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney improperly lessened the beyond a reasonable doubt standard during closing argument; (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to numerous uncharged prior acts that were not properly disclosed; (3) counts 2 and 3 are supported only by legally insufficient generic evidence; (4) the trial court abused its discretion and violated the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing the jury to hear speculative and irrelevant evidence regarding observation of blood on the underwear of a victim (5) the trial court erred by failing to exclude under Evidence Code section 352 testimony regarding blood on the victim's underwear; (6) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct involving improper questioning, mischaracterizing evidence and shifting the burden to defendant to produce evidence, and vouching for the victims' credibility; (9) he was denied effective assistance of counsel through counsel's cumulative errors; and (10) CALCRIM Instruction 1191B unconstitutionally allowed the victims to corroborate their own accusations. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 22, 2021, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a third amended information charging defendant with 18 total offenses against six minor victims.^[1] The amended information charged as follows: as to C.R., one count of oral copulation on a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b);^[2] count 1) and four counts of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 2, 3, 4, and 5); as to N.Y., two counts of oral copulation on a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 6 and 7) and three counts of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 8, 9, and 10); as to R.Y., one count of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (ibid.; count 11); as to S.R., two counts of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (ibid.; counts 12 and 13); as to J.F., four counts of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (ibid.; counts 14, 15, 16, and 17); and as to J.J., one count of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (ibid.; count 18). The information also alleged an aggravating circumstance for multiple victims under section 667.67, subdivisions (b) and (e) for counts 2 through 5, 8, 9, and 11 through 14, and an aggravating circumstance under section 667.67, subdivisions (e) and (j)(2) for multiple victims under the age of 14 years for counts 8 through 10 and 15 through 18. The information further alleged under counts 2 through 5, 8, 9, and 12 through 15 that defendant engaged in substantial sexual conduct with victims under the age of 14 years pursuant to section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8). Finally, the information alleged the charges for all counts except counts 1, 6, and 7 were within the applicable limitations period of section 801.1, subdivision (a).

A jury trial began on June 15, 2021, and concluded on June 24, 2021. The jury found defendant guilty on all 18 counts and also found true all of the special allegations under sections 667.67, subdivisions (b), (e), and (j)(2), 801.1 subdivision (a), and 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8).

On August 10, 2021, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 120 years to life as follows: as to count 1, 15 years to life; as to count 2, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 1; as to count 3, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 2; as to count 4, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 3; as to count 5, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 4; as to count 6, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 5; as to count 7, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 6; as to count 8, 25 years to life to be served consecutively to count 1; as to count 9, 25 years to life to be served concurrently with count 8; as to count 10, 25 years to life to be served concurrently with count 9; as to count 11, 15 years to life to be served consecutively to count 8; as to count 12, 15 years to life to be served consecutively to count 11; as to count 13, 15 years to life to be served concurrently with count 12; as to count 14, 25 years to life to be served concurrently with count 12; as to count 15, 15 years to life to be served consecutively to count 12; as to count 16, 25 years to life to be served concurrently with count 15; as to count 17, 25 years to life to be served concurrently with count 16; and as to count 18, 25 years to life to be served consecutively to count 15.

On August 23, 2021, defendant timely appealed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was born in 1984. At all relevant times, defendant lived with his parents at his parents' house and did odd jobs and clay sculpting. Defendant's brother and his family (including nieces C.R. and S.R.) lived catty-corner to defendant, while the Y family (including daughters N.Y. and R.Y.) lived directly across the street from defendant. C.R S.R., N.Y., and R.Y., along with J.J. (N.Y. and R.Y.'s cousin) were all minors and would visit and play at defendant's home on a regular basis. Defendant's female cousin, J.F., who was a minor, would also visit defendant's home during holidays.

In February 2018, when N.Y. was 12 years old and in the 7th grade, she reported to her teacher that defendant had sexually abused her. This report was the first time that N.Y. had told anyone about sexual abuse/molestation. N.Y. was unaware of any sexual abuse by defendant against the other victims. A law enforcement investigation into N.Y.'s allegations against defendant ensued.

A Visalia police officer and a county child welfare officer went to N.Y.'s home to conduct a preliminary interview. N.Y. informed these officers that defendant had "touched her inappropriately." Per protocol, the officers also spoke with N.Y.'s sister R.Y., who was 17 years old at the time. R.Y. disclosed to the officers that defendant had "inappropriately touched her." This was the first time that R.Y. disclosed abuse by defendant. The officers forwarded their information to Visalia police detectives for further investigation.

The matter was assigned to Detective Martinez for further investigation. Martinez instituted a CART (child abuse report team) interview with N.Y., and an in-depth interview with R.Y. During N.Y.'s interview, she mentioned that C.R. had accidentally witnessed defendant molesting her.

Detective Martinez subsequently spoke with C.R., who was 15 years old at the time, at her high school to see if she remembered the incident with defendant and N.Y. As Martinez began to speak with C.R. about defendant and N.Y., C.R. became emotional and started to cry. Martinez asked C.R. if defendant had touched her inappropriately, and C.R. said that he had. C.R. had not told anyone about the abuse. Martinez arrested defendant after interviewing C.R.

Shortly after defendant's arrest, Detective Martinez contacted C.R.'s parents to disclose C.R.'s allegations. C.R.'s parents talked with their daughters and later spoke with Martinez. C.R.'s father believed that S.R. was holding something back, and he requested that Martinez speak with S.R. Martinez then went to S.R.'s high school and spoke with S.R., who was 16 years old at the time. S.R. disclosed to Martinez that she had been molested by defendant.

C.R.'s father again contacted Detective Martinez to let him know that his cousin, P.I., had requested Martinez's contact information. P.I. spoke with Martinez to inform him that her younger sister J.F. had indicated something had happened between J.F. and defendant. Martinez then instituted a CART interview with J.F., who was 11 years old at the time. J.F. disclosed that she had been molested by defendant.

After J.F. was interviewed, P.I. again contacted Detective Martinez and gave him information concerning J.J. Martinez contacted J.J. at her high school, where she disclosed that defendant had touched her inappropriately.

At trial, all six victims testified.^[3]

Victim N.Y.

In relevant part, N.Y. testified that defendant began touching her inappropriately when she was five years old. Defendant would touch N.Y.'s vagina or buttocks with his hand or mouth, and when she was about six or seven years old defendant started to show her pornography. N.Y. testified that defendant would also make her touch his penis. N.Y. had no memory of defendant attempting to have intercourse with her, but she did remember defendant telling her one time that he wanted to try intercourse, but said she was too small, and that Vaseline might help. Defendant...