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 14 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. Soto CA4/2 (2026) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. Soto CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 2/19/26 P. v. Soto CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, E085168
v. (Super.Ct.No. INF1600632)
JOSE INOCENCIO SOTO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen J. Gallon, Judge.
Affirmed.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In this Anders/Wende1 matter, defendant and appellant Jose Inocencio Soto appeals
from the trial court’s entry of judgment following a jury verdict convicting him of three
felony counts of sexually abusing his girlfriend’s daughter. The jury found defendant
committed aggravated oral copulation of a child younger than 14 years old (Pen. Code,2
§ 269, subd. (a)(4); count 1;), aggravated sexual penetration of a child under the age of 14
(§ 269, subd. (a)(5); count 2), and forcible lewd conduct against a child under age 14
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.
(§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 3). The jury found two factors in aggravation true as to each
count: the victim was particularly vulnerable, and defendant took advantage of a position
of trust to commit the crimes. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3) & (a)(11).)
In December 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant, who was 56 years old at
the time, to concurrent indeterminate life terms on counts 1 and 2, with no parole
eligibility on either count for 15 years. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term
of 10 years on count 3, subject to a stay under section 654, and found defendant’s
presentence custody credits totaled 1,032 days. Our independent Anders and Wende
review on appeal discloses no issues of arguable merit on which to request briefing by the
parties. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue”
requires “a reasonable potential for success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the
1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
2 All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
BACKGROUND Jane Doe (Minor) was born in June 2003. In 2016, she and her mother, L.A.
(Mother), lived in an apartment in Coachella; Mother had recently begun dating
Minor did not trust defendant and usually had a ride to school, but not on
February 19, 2016. Defendant spent the previous night at the apartment and agreed to
take Minor to school because Mother had to leave early for work. Minor testified
regarding how defendant abused her that morning, including that he approached her on
the couch where she was dressed and waiting to depart, he sat down next to her
unexpectedly, and she froze with fear as he first “squished” his hand “between his body
and [hers],” and subsequently engaged in forceful lewd acts that included digital
penetration and oral copulation. Minor did not answer Mother’s daily morning call to her
cellphone to wake her at 6:20 a.m., and Mother’s ensuing calls to Minor’s and
defendant’s phones went unanswered.
When Minor finally answered Mother’s call, Mother could tell from Minor’s tone
of voice that something was different. At some point, defendant returned to the room and
then drove Minor to her school. There, when a friend inquired why she was crying,
Minor told her she had been assaulted. Minor’s tears were uncontrollable. She gathered
herself for her physical education class, but was reluctant to change into her gym clothes,
fearing that others would be able to see she had been abused. At her friend’s urging,
Minor told the gym teacher that defendant had touched her inappropriately. The teacher
contacted the police, the school contacted Mother, a forensic interview was conducted,
and Minor underwent a sexual assault examination in which male DNA specimens were
recovered from her face, neck, and genital area.
Defendant ignored Mother’s telephone calls. Mother eventually confronted
defendant at a restaurant, but he denied any wrongdoing. Defendant disappeared,
declining a new work opportunity with his brother. Police investigators tried to reach
defendant through his brother, to no avail.
In 2023, investigators obtained a sample of defendant’s DNA. Defendant’s DNA
profile matched those recovered on swabs of Minor’s genital area and her face.
APPEAL AND REVIEW Following the verdict, sentencing, and entry of judgment, defendant appealed.
This court appointed appellate counsel. Counsel’s review of the record and legal research
uncovered no arguable issues to raise on appeal, including after consultation with
Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching that conclusion, counsel noted several issues for
our potential reconsideration in our independent review: (1) did the trial court err when it
permitted one forensic nurse to testify regarding a forensic examination—including DNA
results—conducted by another nurse; (2) did the court err in failing to instruct on lesser
included offenses under the accusatory pleading test; (3) did the court err in overruling a
hearsay objections; and (4) if erroneous, did any of these ruling prejudice defendant?
Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied
defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no
arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.