People v. Miranda CA1/4

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. Miranda CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169230 v. DANIEL VALENCIA MIRANDA, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 02003346335) Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Valencia Miranda entered a guilty plea to a single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age in violation of Penal Code section 269, subdivision (a)(3).1 He appeals from a restitution award of $200,000 to his minor victim for noneconomic damages. He argues the award was unsupported by substantial evidence. We affirm. BACKGROUND Miranda’s minor victim provided police a description of ongoing sexual abuse that occurred when she was eight years old. Miranda was in a relationship and living with the minor’s mother at the time, and he considered himself to be her stepfather. The abuse occurred approximately ten times when Miranda was home with the victim and her younger half-

1 Unless stated otherwise, references to statutes are to the Penal Code.

1

sister while the mother was at work. Miranda told the victim that if she spoke of the abuse to anyone, he would kill her mother. Miranda ultimately confessed to touching the victim’s vagina and sodomizing her. Miranda was charged with two counts of violating section 288.7, subdivision (a), six counts of violating section 288, subdivision (b)(1), and one count of violating section 269, subdivision (a)(3). He entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age in violation of section 269, subdivision (a)(3), with a Harvey waiver.2 He received a sentence of 15 years to life in prison. The People sought a restitution award of noneconomic damages to the minor victim of $200,000. The restitution request was supported with a statement from the victim’s mother. The mother described her daughter’s daily pain and sadness. She said she was always angry and tried to harm herself. She didn’t want to leave her home, and just wanted to be in her room. Mother and both her daughters were in therapy. Miranda opposed the request on the basis that it was unsupported by sufficient evidence. The same trial judge who conducted Miranda’s preliminary hearing and sentencing presided over the restitution hearing. The court awarded $200,000 as requested by the People. In doing so, the court expressed its assessment of the impact of Miranda’s offenses: “This little girl was 8 years old, and was sodomized by a man that she trusted, that the mother trusted. And it really only stopped because the mom’s job changed, otherwise it would have been ongoing and continuing. “The conduct, you know, of the sodomy just on a daily basis is just unbelievable for an 8-year-old girl. And I just think that