P. v. Vanderberg
Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Vanderberg CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY AUSTIN VANDERBERG, Defendant and Appellant. | E037517 (Super.Ct.No. PEF006184) O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. James B. Jennings, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Barbara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lilia E. Garcia, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Janelle Marie Boustany and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant guilty as charged of five counts of lewd and lascivious conduct on three girls, all under age 14, namely girl 1 (counts 1 and 2); girl 2 (counts 3 and 4); and girl 3 (count 5). (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).)[1] The jury also convicted defendant of orally copulating a fourth girl under age 14, girl 4, by means of force. (§ 269, subd. (a)(4); count 6.) All four girls were friends or acquaintances of defendant's two daughters (daughters 1 and 2). Defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life plus 10 years, and appeals.
Defendant, who collapsed during the prosecutor's closing argument and was taken to the hospital, first contends that the trial court erroneously accepted his notarized waiver of his right to be present during closing arguments, which he signed the day after he collapsed and while he was still in the hospital undergoing tests. He argues that the trial court erred in accepting the waiver, because there was no medical evidence indicating he signed the waiver knowingly and voluntarily. He further contends that the prosecutor committed four acts of â€
