People v. Alvidrez CA5

Filed 11/21/24 P. v. Alvidrez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F086895 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF362309) v.

ARTHUR ALVIDREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge. Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Clara M. Levers and Galen N. Farris, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Arthur Alvidrez was convicted by a jury of 61 sex offenses against four child victims and sentenced to 885 years to life plus a concurrent, determinate term of two years. On appeal, he argues the trial court violated his right to due process by instructing the jury with CALCRIM 1191B, which permitted the jury to conclude that he had a propensity to commit the other sex crimes charged in this case if it found that any charged sex crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But he concedes his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Villatoro (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1152 (Villatoro), and acknowledges we are bound to follow Villatoro under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 (Auto Equity Sales). He raises this issue to urge the Supreme Court to reconsider Villatoro. He also argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing full consecutive terms on 24 of the counts. The People concede on this point. We agree with the parties that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion, and accordingly Alvidrez’s sentence must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In July 2023, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Alvidrez with three counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1, 2, 14), 21 counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 3–13, 52–61), 34 counts of forcible lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 15–48), two counts of lewd acts on a child aged 14 or 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1); counts 49 & 50), and one count of forcible oral copulation (former § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(B), now § 287, subd. (c)(2)(B); count 51). The information further alleged a multiple-victim special circumstance as to counts 3 through 13, 15 through 48, and 51 through 61.