DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,059 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 12 hours ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
People v. Carranza CA4/2 (2026) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. Carranza CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 2/17/26 P. v. Carranza CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, E085712 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. FWV23002553) v. OPINION VICTOR MANUEL CARRANZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson
Uhler, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Maria I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In 2024 a jury convicted Victor Manuel Carranza of eight counts of committing a
lewd act on a child under the age of 14. He appealed his judgment. His attorney has
filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende and Anders v. California1 informing
this court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an
independent review of the record. We affirm.
BACKGROUND Jane Doe 1 is Carranza’s cousin and is nine years younger than Carranza.
Carranza was born in 1986, and Jane Doe 1 was born in 1995.
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
When Jane Doe 1 was seven years old, Carranza groped her chest and buttocks
over her clothes, and dry humped her in her bedroom while she was sleeping. This
happened more than five times, and continued after Jane Doe 1 turned eight.
When Jane Doe 1 was 10 years old, she moved next door to Carranza. The dry
humping and groping continued during this time, occurring about once every two weeks.
When she turned 12 or 13, Carranza began groping between her legs over her clothes. He
touched her between her legs more than five times. When Jane Doe 1 was 14, Carranza
masturbated his penis over her face. This happened four or five times.
Jane Doe 1 did not report these incidents until years later, after she had her own
children. Police interviewed Jane Doe 1 in 2022, and asked her to participate in a pretext
phone call with Carranza. Carranza admitted to touching Jane Doe 1 inappropriately
1 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).
during the pretext phone call. Police then interviewed Carranza, and he admitted to dry
The San Bernardino County District Attorney charged Carranza with eight counts
of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)),2
sexual penetration by force of someone under 14 (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C)), assault with
intent to commit rape during a first-degree burglary (§ 220, subd. (b)) and two counts of
forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) as well as two additional sexual crimes against a
second victim, Jane Doe 2. Carranza objected that some of the offenses were barred by
the statute of limitations. The court found this objection unavailing because
section 799—which lifts the statute of limitations for any “offense punishable by death or
imprisonment . . . for life”—and section 801.1—which allows for prosecution under
section 288 until the victim’s 40th birthday if the statute of limitations had not yet run by
January 1, 2015—allowed prosecution for these crimes. However, the trial court did
grant Carranza’s motion to dismiss one of the forcible rape charges.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. During deliberations, five jurors reported,
through a jury question, that they believed the prosecutor was signaling witnesses to give
specific answers. Carranza brought a motion to dismiss all charges based on
prosecutorial misconduct, which the prosecution opposed. Carranza also requested the
court suspend jury deliberations in order to hold a hearing on the alleged misconduct, and
requested a mistrial if the court did not suspend the proceedings. The court opted to not
2 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
suspend the deliberations or declare a mistrial, and instead instruct the jury that it could
take the alleged misconduct into account when assessing witness credibility. However, it
also committed to holding a hearing on the allegations after the jury had completed its
The jury deadlocked on the forcible rape charge against Jane Doe 1 and both of
the counts regarding Jane Doe 2. The court declared a mistrial as to those counts, and
they were subsequently dismissed on the prosecution’s motion.
The jury found Carranza guilty of all eight counts of committing a lewd act upon a
child under the age of 14 against Jane Doe 1, but not guilty of all remaining counts.
The court then held an evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged prosecutorial
misconduct. The court heard testimony from all 12 jurors, three alternates, an officer
who testified on the prosecution’s behalf, the victim advocate, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2,
and another witness who testified for the prosecution. After hearing this testimony and
argument, the court denied the defense’s motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct.
The court stated that it did not personally notice any signaling behavior from the
prosecutor, found credible witnesses’ testimony that the prosecutor was not trying to
communicate with them, and found the jurors’ testimony regarding the alleged signaling
The trial court found three aggravating factors true and dismissed a multiple
victims enhancement. It then sentenced Carranza to an aggregate term of 17 years,
composed of three years for one of the eight convictions, and two years (one-third the
midterm of six years) each for the seven subsequent counts.
DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent Carranza on appeal, and counsel has filed a
brief under the authority of Wende and Anders, setting forth a statement of the case and a
summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.
Counsel’s brief directed our attention to three potential issues: (1) whether the prosecutor
did engage in misconduct; (2) whether the statute of limitations barred prosecuting
Carranza under section 288, subdivision (a); and (3) whether there was sufficient
evidence to convict Carranza. We offered Carranza an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Carranza.
DISPOSITION NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAPHAEL J. We concur:
MENETREZ J.