P. v. Hernandez
Filed 9/5/06 P. v. Hernandez CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICIO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | A113247 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC059372) |
Counsel appointed for defendant Mauricio Hernandez has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. We have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.
Our examination[1] reveals that on June 19, 2005, the San Mateo Police Department received a report of threatening messages left on an answering machine. The responding officer met with the reporting party and her 14‑year‑old daughter (the victim). The victim reported that she had been sexually molested by defendant, her 18‑year‑old brother, who had left the threatening messages. She explained that beginning approximately four months earlier, she had become increasingly uncomfortable around defendant, who had made inappropriate sexual comments, had digitally penetrated her, and had sexual intercourse with her on at least three separate occasions. The victim also indicated that they had kissed, he had fondled her breasts, and they had performed oral sex on each other. The victim stated that she now stays close to her mother because she is afraid of defendant.
By complaint filed August 11, 2005, defendant was charged with four counts of digital penetration of a person under the age of 18 years in violation of Penal Code section 289, subdivision (h) (counts 1, 2, 3, and 7), two counts of oral copulation with a person under the age of 18 years in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 4 and 6), and two counts of statutory rape in violation of Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (c) (counts 5 and 8). The following day, defendant was arrested.
Upon questioning, defendant described the relationship between him and the victim as follows. Defendant first met the victim, with whom he shares a mother, in Mexico when she was four years old and he was seven years old. The victim was very flirtatious and the two would frequently touch each other when they were in their bedroom. As they got older, the touching escalated, and when the victim started seventh grade and the defendant was a sophomore in high school, they began to feel â€
