P. v. Trejo
Filed 6/14/06 P. v. Trejo CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTONIO TREJO, Defendant and Appellant. | A110231 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. CH35794) |
Antonio Trejo timely appeals his jury-trial conviction on one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Penal Code section 288.5.[1] Trejo contends the trial court erred by failing to provide him with an interpreter for all purposes, resulting in an unfair trial. He asserts a related claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request an interpreter for all purposes. Trejo also alleges instructional error. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. Procedure
The first amended information filed on October 27, 2004, charged Trejo with a single count of continuous sexual abuse of B., a child under the age of 14 years, in violation of section 288.5, subdivision (a). The amended information alleged the sexual abuse took place between June 1998 and June 2003 while Trejo resided with, and had recurring access to, the child.
Before trial, counsel requested an interpreter for Trejo, â€
