Filed 1/4/18 P. v. Ruiz CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD GOMEZ RUIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068321

(Super.Ct.No. FVI1403710)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John M. Tomberlin, Judge. Affirmed.
Kristin A. Erickson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 28, 2015, defendant and appellant Richard Gomez Ruiz was charged with sexual penetration of a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); a felony). A jury trial began on April 5, 2017, and on April 6, 2017, the jury found defendant guilty as charged.
The trial court issued a 15-years-to-life sentence on May 12, 2017. On May 16, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
1. PROSECUTION CASE
Minor, born in May 2005, testified that in September 2014 she and some other kids helped their neighbor (defendant) wash his car. Afterwards, Minor helped defendant hang a birdcage up in his carport. To accomplish this, defendant picked her up; she felt like he was touching her vagina. When that task was completed, they worked on a word search puzzle on his patio. Defendant touched her leg; Minor told him to stop because it tickled. Defendant then put two fingers inside her vagina five or six times. It hurt, but she did not say anything while he did this. Defendant stopped when an upstairs neighbor came down. A short time later, Minor’s grandmother, who was babysitting her that day, called her in to lunch. Minor told her grandmother what defendant had done.
On September 27, 2014, San Bernardino County Deputy Sheriff Alicia Jackson was dispatched to investigate a child sex crime. Deputy Jackson interviewed Minor; the interview was recorded and was played for the jury.
In the interview, Minor stated that she helped defendant hang a bird cage, and at that time, he touched her vagina over her shorts. Then, when she did a word search with him, he rubbed her leg. She asked him to stop. Instead of stopping, defendant did it again closer to her vagina, under her underwear. He wiggled his fingers and “spread it.” Minor said it felt like defendant was pushing her bones. His fingers went inside her vagina.
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Detective Jonathan Cahow also interviewed Minor. That recording was also played for the jury. Minor stated that defendant put his fingers inside her vagina. She again stated that it felt like he was touching her bones. Minor told the detective that defendant used two fingers on his left hand.
San Bernardino County Deputy Sheriff Josh Guerry went to defendant’s home the night of September 27, 2014. Deputy Guerry took defendant to the sheriff’s station to be interviewed. Deputy Guerry did not place defendant under arrest at that time. Deputy Guerry recorded his interactions with defendant; the recording was played for the jury. In the recording, when defendant’s daughter asked defendant what he did, he stated, “something about molesting a girl.”
Detective Cahow also interviewed defendant at the police station; the interview was recorded and played for the jury. Defendant believed he was being interviewed because, “they think I molested a girl.” He told Detective Cahow that when he lifted Minor to hang the bird cage, he accidentally touched her butt. He did not touch her vagina. Later, he stated that when he picked her up, he “may have gotten too close to her vagina.” Then, while they were doing the word search, he touched her leg and told her to go put on some pants because she seemed cold. When Detective Cahow asked whether defendant’s fingers went inside Minor’s vagina, he said, “maybe I did, maybe I didn’t.” When asked how far his fingers went inside Minor’s vagina, he stated, “not too far.” Defendant admitted that fingers on his right hand went inside a couple of times. Defendant said that he made a mistake, and he apologized. He knew it was wrong. He admitted that he told Minor not to say anything.
Detective Cahow asked defendant if he wanted to write an apology letter. Defendant said he would; defendant dictated the letter and the detective wrote it down for him. The letter said: “To the parents: I am sorry for what happened. I’ll never do it again to nobody else. We are neighbors, and my son plays with them. They are all—they are really good friends. Please forgive me. I am sorry.”
Lisa Farbelow, a nurse specializing in sexual assault nursing, examined Minor on September 28, 2014. Minor’s exam was normal; no physical injuries were noted. The nurse did not notice any blood either on Minor or on Minor’s clothes.
2. DEFENSE CASE
Defendant’s granddaughter testified that defendant was a father figure to her. She lived with him from the time she was six years old, to when she turned 18. Defendant’s primary language is Spanish. He is hard of hearing.
Defendant testified with the assistance of a translator. At the time of the incident, he lived with his wife and 10-year-old son. On the date in question, defendant admitted he lifted Minor up to hang a birdcage, but he did not touch her vagina. While they did the word search together, he touched her legs because she was cold. He may have accidentally touched near her vagina, but he never put his fingers inside. During the interview at the sheriff’s station, he told the detective that he did not understand English very well. The detective continued to interview defendant in English. Defendant also has hearing issues and he did not have his hearing aid on during the interview.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


MILLER
J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


McKINSTER
J.