People v. Herediasantana CA4/3

Filed 2/18/26 P. v. Herediasantana 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G064391

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22CF0957)

ALEJANDRO HEREDIASANTANA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, 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, Collette C. Cavalier, Kathryn Kirschbaum, and Ksenia Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Alejandro Herediasantana of various sex crimes against underage girls and of violating a restraining order. He asserts the judgment must be reversed because the trial court erroneously disallowed two defense peremptory challenges, it improperly limited evidence of other perpetrators’ sexual abuse of one of his victims, and there was insufficient evidence he knew about the terms of the protective order. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment. FACTS In the early 2000s, Herediasantana began dating a woman who lived in a rented room in Santa Ana with her children. He often stayed with them over the weekend, sharing the single bed. When the woman’s 10-year- old daughter, B., moved from Mexico to join her family in Santa Ana, Herediasantana began to rape and molest the child. The abuse continued over the next six years until B. moved out of state to escape him. Years later, while dating another woman, Herediasantana (then in his late 40s) began having sex with her 15-year-old daughter, Y. After learning about their relationship, Y.’s mother obtained a restraining order against Herediasantana, but he continued his relationship with Y., who eventually got pregnant. She gave birth to his child when she was 17. Herediasantana was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (id., § 261.5, subd. (c)), and two counts of violating a protective order (id., § 273.6, subd. (a)), among other allegations. The prosecution filed a motion in limine under California’s rape shield law (Evid. Code, §§ 782, 1103) to exclude evidence that B. had been sexually assaulted by two other men. In opposition, defense counsel maintained the evidence was necessary to impeach B.’s credibility, as B. had