People v. Marquez CA6

Filed 10/10/25 P. v. Marquez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H052943 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 22CR009614)

v.

SERGIO MARQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Sergio Marquez appeals from a judgment after pleading no contest to several counts of sexual assault against three minors and admitting three circumstances in aggravation. The trial court sentenced Marquez to five years in prison and denied his request for custody credit based on the time he spent on GPS monitoring. On appeal, Marquez’s counsel has filed a brief which states the case but raises no issues, under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Marquez of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days and he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal. I. BACKGROUND

The Monterey District Attorney charged Marquez with four sexual offenses against three minors: sexual penetration by foreign object by force or fear, as to Jane

Doe 4 in 2005 (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1); count 1);1 oral copulation of a person under 18 (§ 288a, subd. (b)(1); count 2) and sexual penetration by foreign object of person under 18 (§ 289, subd. (h); count 3) as to Jane Doe 3 in 2012; and lewd act upon a child, as to Jane Doe 2 in 2021 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1); count 4). In connection with each count, the district attorney alleged three circumstances in aggravation: (1) the victims were particularly vulnerable, (2) the manner in which Marquez carried out the crimes indicated planning, sophistication, and professionalism, and (3) in committing the offenses, Marquez (then a teacher) took advantage of a position of trust or confidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (8), & (11).) Marquez initially spent time in custody but later posted bail and remained out of custody on GPS monitoring until sentencing. Marquez pleaded no contest as charged and admitted the circumstances in aggravation. Before taking the plea, the trial court indicated it would likely sentence Marquez to a term of imprisonment between four years four months and five years, noting that his maximum exposure was 10 years. The court admonished Marquez that he was pleading no contest to a strike offense and would be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. At sentencing, the court heard victim impact statements from Jane Doe 3 (named in counts 2 and 3) and Jane Doe 1—not named in the information—who told the court that Marquez sexually assaulted her when she was a student in his class but that the offenses were beyond the statute of limitations. Marquez did not object to Jane Doe 1’s statement. The court sentenced Marquez to an aggregate term of five years in prison: the low term of three years for count 1 (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and eight months (one-third of the middle term) for each of counts 2, 3, and 4 (§§ 288a, subd. (b)(1), 289, subd. (h), 288,