In re M.D. CA1/3

Filed 3/2/26 In re M.D. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re M.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A173215

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Sup. Ct. No. J22-00465) M.D., Defendant and Appellant.

M.D. appeals from an order declaring him a ward of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on a finding that he committed forcible oral copulation against Jane Doe. (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (c)(2)(C), undesignated statutory references are to this code.) He argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain the forcible oral copulation allegation. He also contends substantial evidence supported a People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143 defense — that he did not possess wrongful intent because he entertained a reasonable and bona fide belief that Doe consented to sexual intercourse. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In 2021, Doe was 17 years old and a sophomore in high school. She dated M.D. for approximately two weeks in December. When they first started dating, he wanted to “just do it right away” with her. One time while at school, he directed her to an area that did not have cameras and repeatedly asked her to orally copulate him. She refused and told her parents shortly after because she felt uncomfortable and distressed. Doe and M.D. later broke up. Around December 2021 or January 2022 — after they broke up — M.D. and Doe sat and talked near the school library. She wanted to talk more, and he suggested meeting in a different place. Once there, however, he kept asking her to orally copulate him. She said no three times, but he ignored her, looked at his phone, and pushed her head towards his penis so she could orally copulate him. She did so because he forced her head down painfully, and she feared he would get mad or upset if she did not comply. She did not resist when he forced her head down because she “thought it was just normal, and . . . [she] was going along with it. [She] didn’t want to make him mad.” Doe reported the incident to a school healthcare worker about one month later. She had concerns about her safety, about “him showing up to the school” or “seeing him again.” While they had been in a relationship, he had not otherwise pushed her head or used physical aggression to make her orally copulate him. As relevant here, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition, alleging M.D. had committed one felony count of oral copulation upon a minor, 14 years of age or older, by means of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury