People v. Mattea CA3
Filed 9/25/25 P. v. Mattea CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----
THE PEOPLE, C101544
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22F03480)
v.
WILLIAM JOHN MATTEA,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant William John Mattea guilty of 86 counts of various sexual offenses. It also found true a one strike special circumstance allegation under Penal Code1 section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4), which applied to multiple convictions. The trial court sentenced defendant to 810 years to life, plus seven years eight months in prison. On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supports multiple counts of oral
1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
1
copulation of one victim and multiple counts of sexual penetration and lewd acts on another. We agree as to three counts of lewd acts and accordingly reverse defendant’s convictions for lewd acts in counts 83 through 85. We further strike the eight-month sentence imposed for each of those counts. The judgment is affirmed as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was Mary S.’s uncle. When Mary was five years old, defendant started touching her upper inner thigh. When Mary was “like nine or ten” years old, she would go to defendant’s house “at least a few times a week” and he would put his fingers in her vagina “probably every other time [she] went there” for a visit. This conduct stopped when she was 15 years old. At 11 or 12 years old, defendant penetrated Mary’s vagina with his penis while the two laid on his bed watching television. This happened “a few times a month” until she was 13 or 14 years old. When Mary was 11 or 12 years old, defendant started orally copulating her a few times a month until she was 13 or 14 years old. From when Mary was 12 years old until she was 13 or 14 years old, defendant infrequently penetrated her rectum with his penis and fingers. Defendant attempted to penetrate Mary’s vagina with his fingers and his penis while swimming alone with her in the pool, but he could not accomplish the act. The last time defendant touched Mary while the two were alone in the pool was when Mary “was, like, 14 [years old].” Emily D.’s parents were friends with defendant and his wife. Emily spent much of her childhood with defendant and thought of him as an uncle. When she was growing up, she visited his house a few times a month. “[M]ostly every time [she went] over,” he took her into his office and made her watch pornography while sitting on his lap. When Emily sat on defendant’s lap, she felt his erection against her buttocks. When Emily was five years old, she gave defendant massages every time she visited his house, and the massages included her touching his penis. After these massages, defendant would remove Emily’s clothes and give her a massage that included touching her vagina. One time when Emily was six or seven years old, defendant put
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)