People v. Pech CA4/3
Filed 10/20/25 P. v. Pech 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063340
v. (Super. Ct. No. 21NF1803)
MANUEL JESUS PECH, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge. Affirmed. Boyce & Schaefer and Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristin Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Manuel Jesus Pech was convicted of various sex crimes against young women and underage girls. He asserts there was insufficient evidence of duress to support his conviction for sexual penetration by duress. He also contends the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making several comments during his rebuttal argument that appealed to the jury’s passion and prejudice. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment. FACTS Pech worked as a tattoo artist. He did not require his clients to provide identification, so many of them were under the age of 18. Between 2017 and 2021, Pech sexually assaulted a number of young female clients while giving them tattoos. At the time, he was in his late 30s or early 40s and weighed about 250 pounds. Pech was charged with various sex crimes against multiple girls and women. For example, count 3 alleged that he committed sexual penetration of a child over the age of 14 years by duress, force, or fear. The victim in count 3 testified that when she was 16 years old, she contacted Pech through Instagram and arranged to have him give her a tattoo on her right thigh. She and a friend went to Pech’s apartment for the tattoo, and Pech had her lie down on a massage table with her right leg bent outward. The victim was wearing loose-fitting gym shorts at the time. About 30 minutes into the session, Pech tried to force the victim’s legs open. She tried to close her legs, but he forced them open again. Pech then inserted his fingers into her vagina and left them there for five to ten minutes while completing the tattoo with his other hand. The victim “froze,” “got cold,” and felt “scared” and “shocked.” She did not feel like she could stop him and did not say anything; he had the tattoo needle in his other hand and was still tattooing 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)