P. v. Peters
Filed 4/4/06 P. v. Peters CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH NATHANIAL PETERS, Defendant and Appellant. | C048513
(Super. Ct. Nos. 03F05351, 01F05732)
|
A jury convicted defendant Joseph Nathanial Peters of one count of committing a lewd act on a minor under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)‑‑count one) and one count of annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18 years (Pen. Code, § 647.6, subd. (a)‑‑count two [a misdemeanor]). The jury also found true a special allegation that defendant sustained a prior conviction for the commission of a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 667, subd. (a)).
Defendant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to state prison for an aggregate term of 61 years[1] to life. He claims that giving CALJIC No. 2.50.01 improperly lowered the prosecution's burden of proof, that the admission of evidence of four prior acts of sexual misconduct deprived him of his right to a fair trial, and that admission of one of the prior acts violated the collateral estoppel component of the double jeopardy clause. We reject these arguments and shall affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Serina C. began dating defendant in December 2002. On May 22, 2003, defendant came to Serina's apartment at approximately 11:30 p.m. and spent the night. Serina's two daughters T. (age 10) and K. (age 12) shared a bedroom down the hall. Serina and her two daughters testified at trial.
Serina woke up at about 5:30 a.m. on May 23, 2003, and got into the shower to get ready for work. At the time, defendant was still sleeping in her bed. While Serina was in the shower, defendant entered the children's bedroom and got into T.'s bed. He began rubbing T.'s back and told her that she was having a nightmare, but that everything would be okay. T. knew that she was not having a nightmare, but did not respond to defendant's comment. After rubbing T.'s back for five minutes defendant began rubbing her buttocks over her panties for approximately 10 minutes and then rubbed the skin in the â€
