People v. Rivas CA4/1
Filed 8/26/25 P. v. Rivas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D085099
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE419866)
RENE MARTINEZ RIVAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Rene Martinez Rivas of continuous sexual abuse of Melanie R., a child under 14 years of age. (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a).) The jury also found true that, in committing the offense, Rivas (1) used force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on her or another person (§ 1203.066(a)(1)); and (2) had substantial sexual contact with a child under 14 years of age (§ 1203.066(a)(8)). Appointed
appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating she found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende requires. We offered Rivas the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm. I. Melanie was born in October 2004. Her older sister was married to Rivas. Melanie’s sister and Rivas had two children younger than Melanie. A. According to Melanie, shortly before she turned 12 years old in 2016, Rivas babysat her once or twice a week in the evening when Melanie’s sister and mother were both working. Rivas’ “contact with [Melanie] start[ed] to change” when he took a shower while babysitting and called to Melanie to pass him a towel. He opened the door naked and told Melanie “it’s okay” if she “saw him.” Melanie felt very uncomfortable because she “knew it wasn’t right.” A week or two later, when Melanie was 12, Rivas suggested they play “a choices type-of-game,” starting with picking between turning off her phone or drinking a cup of water “super quick.” “But [the game] escalated” and took on a sexual nature. Rivas asked if Melanie would rather remove a piece of her clothing or have him take off a piece of his clothing. She felt “[u]ncomfortable” and “fearful,” and chose Rivas taking off a piece of clothing because the other choice would make her feel “more vulnerable.” He took off his shirt.
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)