P. v. Morales
Filed 7/14/08 P. v. Morales CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LARA MORALES, Defendant and Appellant. | B198718 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA062075) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
John V. Meigs, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Vanessa Place, under appointment for the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
Based on conduct with the daughter of a housemate, Robert Lara Morales was convicted on one count of lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)).
According to the trial evidence, Jennifer G., then 13 years old and a special needs student, lived in Inglewood with her family. Morales, a friend of Jennifer G.s uncle, also lived with them; he slept on the living room couch. From February through June 2005, Morales sexually molested Jennifer G. on seven or eight occasions when her parents were away.
On one occasion, Morales touched Jennifer G.s breasts and legs, and he kissed her, before putting his penis inside her vagina. Later, Jennifer G. was asleep; Morales managed to unlock the bedroom door and lead her to the living room where he removed her clothing and touched her breast. On another occasion, Morales threatened her brothers with harm unless she kissed his penis, so she complied. He then put his penis inside her vagina. The last time Morales molested Jennifer G. was when she awoke to go to the bathroom. He led her to the living room, removed her clothes, touched her breasts and put his penis inside her vagina while covering her mouth with his hand. Each time Morales instructed Jennifer G. not to tell anyone about the sexual abuse, claiming she would be forced to leave home or he would harm her family.
When Jennifer G.s mother learned of the abuse, she telephoned police, but did not confront Morales. Responding officers detained Morales but did not speak to him, other than asking his name. Outside of Moraless presence, an officer interviewed Jennifer G. Jennifer G. emerged from the interview and pointed at Morales; he was arrested. As he was being taken into custody, Morales asked if he were being arrested because of his sexual involvement with Jennifer G.
DNA testing was performed on the evidence (clothing and a vaginal swab) collected from Jennifer G. The results matched Moraless DNA (according to the expert, the particular combination of genetic marker types occurs in approximately one in 140.7 quadrillion unrelated individuals). The expert did not believe it would be possible for anyone but an identical twin to share this DNA profile.
Morales testified in his own defense and denied sexually abusing Jennifer G. According to Moraless testimony, Jennifer G. confided in him that her father had touched, kissed and fondled her. When Morales questioned her father about it, he just smiled. Morales also attempted to talk with Jennifer G.s mother about the abuse when she was in the kitchen. Her response was to gesture at him with a kitchen knife she was holding and saying, You better wish me money. Morales did not understand her; and he left the room. Jennifer G. later told Morales her father would force her and her brothers to leave home if she reported the sexual abuse.
Morales testified on the day of his arrest, officers came to the apartment and said they were investigating a complaint of sexual abuse. Jennifer G.s father had already left the apartment by the time police arrived.
Officer Neuret Yanez was one of the responding officers. She interviewed Jennifer G. who said there were seven to eight episodes of sexual abuse by Morales. Jennifer G. seemed embarrassed during the interview. She whispered her answers to Yanezs questions. Yanez was also present during the sexual assault examination.
After Morales was found guilty as charged, the trial court imposed a state prison sentence of 12 years, consisting of the 12-year middle term for the continuous sexual abuse conviction and a concurrent term of two years (one-third the middle term) for the lewd act conviction.
Morales received presentence custody credit of 690 days (600 actual days and 90 days of conduct credit). The trial court ordered him to register as a sex offender and pay a $300 fine, and to undergo HIV testing. The court also ordered Morales to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. He filed a timely appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent Morales on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an Opening Brief on November 2, 2007, in which no issues were raised. On the same date, we advised Morales he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received from Morales to date. On March 14, 2008, we vacated submission. On April 2, 2008, we denied Francisco Dominguezs application to file a next friend document on behalf of Morales. The cause was submitted on April 14, 2008.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Moraless attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v.Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
On June 17, 2008, we notified the Moraless attorney and the Office of the Attorney General that in the absence of an objection we would correct the trial courts unauthorized sentence of concurrent terms of 12 years on count 2 and one-third the middle term of six years on count 1 (see Pen. Code, 1170.1; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350) to reflect the courts true intention to impose concurrent terms of 12 years on count 2 and six years on count 1. Neither party objected to the proposed correction.
DISPOSITION
The sentence is corrected to show the imposition of the 12-year middle term for the continuous sexual abuse conviction (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a)) (count 2) and a concurrent term of six years for the lewd act conviction (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) (count 1). As modified the judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior court is to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the corrected sentence and to forward it to the Department of Corrections.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZELON, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J. WOODS, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
