People v. Ruiz CA4/3
Filed 11/25/24 P. v. Ruiz CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G063249
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SWF2100285, SWF1907831) ALEX RUIZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Riverside County, James S. Hawkins, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Banta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Sharon L. Rhodes, and Alana Cohen Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Alex Ruiz appeals his convictions for committing lewd and lascivious acts on his daughter, Jane Doe (Doe), by the use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions because Doe did not testify that she performed the sexual acts as a result of any threat, use of force, or use of duress. We affirm the convictions. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Facts at Trial Ruiz and Doe lived in various homes belonging to Ruiz’s family, friends, or family acquaintances. Doe’s mother was not in her life, and she was dependent on Ruiz for food, shelter, and caretaking.
The physical abuse started when they were living with Ruiz’s nephew. Doe came home from school and Ruiz started punching her in the leg. He grabbed her by the shirt and punched her in the chest. She was left with bruising and redness. Doe was eleven at the time. Because of this incident, Doe was removed from Ruiz’s care and placed in a foster home. Doe’s removal affected her relationship with her relatives. She felt they had “a rude energy towards [her].” Doe was returned to Ruiz six months later. They moved back into Ruiz’s nephew’s house where they slept on the living room floor together. He told her their “bond was different and that [they] were more . . . connected.” He told her “he loved [her] so much that he wanted to make love to [her].”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)