People v. Gomez CA1/3

Filed 8/23/24 P. v. Gomez CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169625 v. LEONEL PADILLA GOMEZ, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR7538431) Defendant and Appellant.

Leonel Padilla Gomez appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to his plea of no contest to committing four felony sex offenses against Jane Doe, the teenaged daughter of his then fiancée. (Pen. Code, §§ 287, 289, 261.5.)1 In accordance with his plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to 14 years in prison, and 42 other charges involving Jane Doe were dismissed. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief that raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having conducted that review, we conclude the appeal must be dismissed because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 1

indicated. The factual background summarized in this opinion is drawn from the preliminary hearing evidence.

1

SUMMARY OF RECORD ON APPEAL Jane Doe was around 13 when defendant became engaged to Jane’s mother and they moved into a home together. After Jane turned 14, her relationship with defendant became “sexual.” The first incident Jane recalled started while she and defendant were on the couch watching a football game. They ended up going to the bed defendant shared with Jane’s mom, where he asked if Jane wanted to see and touch his penis. She said no, but touched him through his shorts and then he “pulled it out” and “started stroking it himself.” After their first sexual contact, defendant and Jane had conversations about moving forward and what would happen next. Defendant got condoms from the store and went into Jane’s room in the morning to have intercourse with her. The first few weeks, this happened every day or every couple of days. Then they started having intercourse at other times and other places in the house. Jane recalled specific occasions and specific acts, including times when defendant choked her and became violent during the “sexual act.” Defendant would also have Jane orally copulate him and inserted his finger inside her during sexual encounters. At some point, defendant opened a bank account for Jane and told her he would deposit $200 a month so long as she continued the sexual relationship. Jane also sent nude pictures of herself to defendant so that he would have something to look at when she did not want to have sex with him. Jane was 15 when her sexual relationship with defendant ended, in February 2022. She had been talking about wanting a boyfriend and when her mom gave her permission, defendant resisted. He became sad and angry that Jane wanted to be with her friends and not him. He imposed conditions on what she could do, and told her she could go live with an aunt, as her mom