People v. Varela CA3

Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Varela CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102674

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24FE005419)

v.

CHRISTOPHER ADAM VARELA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Christopher Adam Varela of two sexual offenses. The trial court did not impose sentence and placed defendant on probation with the condition that defendant serve 300 days in county jail. On appeal defendant contends: 1) the trial court may have improperly imposed multiple punishments for his convictions in violation of Penal Code1 section 654; and 2) the minute order does not reflect the court’s oral pronouncement as to the restitution fine and corresponding probation revocation fine.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

We conclude that section 654 did not apply here because the trial court granted defendant probation without imposing sentence, so we affirm the judgment. But we direct the trial court to correct the clerk’s minute order to reflect the oral pronouncement as to the jail probation condition and restitution fine and corresponding stayed probation revocation fine as $300 each. I BACKGROUND Between March 27, 2024, and March 29, 2024, multiple local, state, and federal agencies conducted a joint undercover chat operation directed at individuals interested in meeting minors for sexual activity. The three-day operation consisted of law enforcement officers posing as 13-year-olds on various social media platforms and contacting people using the photograph of a decoy, Turlock Police Department cadet, Sophia Hayes. Using the decoy’s photographs, officers “chatted” with people interested in meeting minors for sexual acts. The officers could not instigate the sexual aspect of any interaction. If the person insisted on a phone call or FaceTime call, Cadet Hayes talked to them. Individuals who agreed to meet for purposes of sexual contact with a minor were arrested when they arrived at the agreed-upon location. During the three-day operation, using the decoy’s photograph, Turlock Detective Gina Giovacchini created a profile for an underaged person named “Kaitlynn” on a social media site. Defendant messaged Kaitlynn, commenting that he would “smash,” which Detective Giovacchini interpreted as a sexual reference. Kaitlynn responded with a “kissing-face emoji or a blowing-a-heart emoji.” In response to that message, defendant sent a photograph of an erect penis, to which Kaitlynn responded, “oh my.” Defendant messaged that he was “in the shower looking at [Kaitlynn’s] sexy ass picture.” Kaitlynn messaged defendant that she was “stuck” in a hotel room in Sacramento because her mother went to Reno without her and told Kaitlynn she “couldn’t leave” the room. Defendant responded, “Send me a pic. I’m in Woodland, babe.” He followed that