People v. Lozano CA4/1

Filed 12/10/25 P. v. Lozano 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084895

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN434837)

MARTIN LOZANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kelly C. Mok, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Owen, 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, Daniel Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda Lloyd and Alana Cohen Butler, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Martin Lozano on ten counts of committing lewd or

lascivious acts under Penal Code1 section 288. Lozano challenges his convictions, claiming the standard unanimity instruction given by the trial court deprived him of his right to a unanimous verdict. We find the court adequately informed the jury of Lozano’s right to a unanimous verdict on every count. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lozano was charged with eight counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under section 288, subdivision (a) (counts 3 through 10), and two counts of forcibly committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (counts 1 and 2). Counts 1 through 6 alleged crimes against F.L. and counts 7 through 10 alleged crimes against S.L. We will not discuss the evidence in significant detail, as it is largely irrelevant to our disposition of this appeal. However, Lozano acknowledges “the evidence [presented at trial] showed” “[m]ultiple incidents of [Lozano] touching [F.L.’s] back, chest and private parts while sitting on his lap”; “[t]wo specific incidents of touching [F.L.’s] vagina in the bedroom”; and “[a]n incident of inappropriate butt touching in the kitchen.” With respect to S.L., he concedes “the evidence showed” he “[t]ouched [S.L.’s] chest under her clothes”; “[t]ouched her buttocks and vagina under her clothes on multiple occasions”; and “[g]rabbed and stroked her vagina.” During an initial jury instruction conference, the trial court stated its intention to give a modified version of former CALCRIM No. 3501. At the time of trial, the model version of that instruction read: