People v. Espinoza CA4/1

Filed 2/6/26 P. v. Espinoza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084544

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS314699)

LUIS VASQUEZ ESPINOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D’Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Adrian R. Contreras, Daniel Rogers, and Matthew Mulford, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Luis Vasquez Espinoza sexually molested a young relative who child- protective services had placed in the home Espinoza shared with his mother. A jury convicted Espinoza of two counts of orally copulating a child 10 years

old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)) and two counts of committing a forcible lewd act on a child under 14 years old (id., § 288, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Espinoza to 30 years to life in prison plus a determinate 20-year prison term. On appeal from the judgment, Espinoza argues the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of a witness who would have impeached the credibility of the victim’s mother. As we explain, this argument is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Prosecution’s Case In 2018, San Diego Child Welfare Services placed the victim, who was five years old at the time, and the child’s four-year-old sibling in the home of their mother’s aunt, L.V. The children lived with L.V. for about two years while their mother, S.T., was in federal custody. L.V.’s son, Espinoza, who was 23 years old at the time, also lived there. While they lived in the same home, Espinoza would “bribe” the victim by offering her candy to come to his room. Espinoza also told the victim not “to tell anyone or else he’d hit [her].” Espinoza would bend the victim over or tell the child to crouch on her knees and “make [her] suck” his penis through a hole in his boxers. He penetrated the child’s mouth about three or four inches. The victim testified at trial that it felt “nasty,” like a “nasty taste was in [her] mouth.” Espinoza did this more than twice, including once in the night and multiple times during the day. The victim also testified that Espinoza showed her pornographic videos that involved oral sex and a girl drinking “the white stuff.” Espinoza told the victim that he wanted her “ ‘to do that,’ ” and this occurred at least once. Another time, and possibly more than once, Espinoza called the child into his