People v. Mendoza CA2/6

Filed 2/5/14 P. v. Mendoza CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B247144 (Super. Ct. No. 2009009533) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

VINCENT RAY MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Vincent Ray Mendoza appeals the judgment entered following a court trial in which he was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 288.5) and two counts each of committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)), luring (§ 288.3, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor child molestation (§ 647.6, subd. (a)).2 Appellant was sentenced to 30 years in state prison. He contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for continuous sexual abuse. We affirm.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The trial court struck allegations that appellant committed lewd and lascivious acts against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4)), and that one of his victims was under the age of 14 (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant's niece D. was born in 1994. When D. was between the ages of five and seven, appellant touched her inappropriately on numerous occasions. The incidents occurred while D. was staying with her grandmother T., who is appellant's mother. On 10 to 20 different occasions, appellant took D. into the bathroom, pulled her pants and underwear down to her knees, and touched her vagina and buttocks. Appellant also took off his pants and underwear. On a couple of times, appellant took D.'s hand and placed it on his penis. He told D. not to tell anyone about the incidents. As D. got older, she tried to avoid appellant and wore non-revealing clothing when she saw him. During this time, appellant would call D. on her cell phone and tell her that he wanted to see her again so he could touch her. Appellant also sexually abused D.'s younger sister M. When M. was seven or eight years old, appellant began making comments about touching her vagina and asked her if he could do so. He also asked M. if she had boyfriends and whether she let them touch her. On one occasion, M. and appellant were sitting on the couch when he pulled her over and touched her vaginal area over her clothing for several minutes. On another occasion, appellant reached under M.'s clothes and touched her vaginal and chest areas. M. yelled at appellant to stop, and he told her not to yell at him. Appellant subsequently called M. and told her not to tell her parents what he had done. During the same period, appellant would call M. and ask when he could see her and touch her again. Appellant continued calling D. at her home for several years, asking if he could see her. When D. entered the ninth grade, appellant began calling her on her cell phone and asking if he could see her and "touch [her] down there." He also asked whether she wore a bra and had "hair down there." D. reported the abuse to her mother in November 2008. D.'s mother asked M. if appellant had also touched her, and she verified that he had. D.'s parents confronted appellant about the abuse. Prior to appellant's arrest, D. made a phone call to him that was surreptitiously recorded by the police. During the call, appellant apologized for touching