P. v. Segura
Filed 8/9/06 P. v. Segura 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. RUFINO SEGURA, Defendant and Appellant. | E038855 (Super.Ct.No. FSB033248) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Arthur Harrison, Judge. Affirmed.
Sally Brajevich, 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, Gil Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of committing continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a))[1] (count 1); committing a lewd act on a child age 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)) (count 2); and unlawful sexual intercourse (§ 261.5, subd. (d)), the lesser included offense of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) (count 3). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 13 years in state prison as follows: the midterm of 12 years on count 1, a concurrent term on count 2, plus a consecutive one-year term (one-third the midterm) on count 3. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's prior uncharged acts of sexual molestation; (2) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument; and (3) defendant was deprived of his federal and state constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process under Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed. 2d 403] (Blakely) and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435] (Apprendi) when the trial court imposed a consecutive term on count 3. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant's stepdaughter, M., testified that when she was around 13 years old, her relationship with defendant began to change. Before she turned 13, defendant began â€
