People v. Navabarrera CA2/6

Filed 8/19/24 P. v. Navabarrera CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B327330 (Super. Ct. No. 20F-01317) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MARCO ANTONIO NAVABARRERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Marco Antonio Navabarrera appeals his conviction, by jury, of one count of oral copulation against A.R., a person under 10 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b))1, one count of committing a lewd act against A.R., a person under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a)), four counts of committing forcible lewd acts against J.R., a person under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), and two counts of committing lewd acts against J.R. when J.R.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

was 14 or 15 years of age. (§ 288, subd. (c)(1).) With respect to the lewd act committed against A.R. and the forcible lewd acts committed against J.R., the jury further found true the enhancement allegation that the offenses were committed against multiple victims. (§ 667.61, subd. (j)(2).) The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of 15 years to life on count 1, the oral copulation against A.R., and consecutive terms of 25 years to life on the remaining lewd act offenses, for a total term of 140 years to life. The trial court imposed a term of 2 years, eight months for the offenses committed against J.R. after the victim turned 14 years of age. Appellant contends the matter should be remanded for resentencing because the probation department and the prosecutor misled the trial court into believing that it lacked discretion to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, terms on counts 1 and 2, the offenses committed against A.R. Because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court misunderstood or abused its sentencing discretion, we affirm. Facts The specific details of appellant’s numerous, serious sex offenses are not relevant to this appeal, because the only issue he raises relates to trial court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion. Briefly stated, A.R. and J.R. are siblings. Appellant became a friend of their parents. When their mother moved to San Luis Obispo County with A.R. and J.R., appellant visited them frequently. The children were often home alone because their mother worked long hours. Appellant took advantage of that situation to repeatedly sexually assault both children. He also video recorded and photographed himself assaulting both children.