People v. Sanchez CA2/2

Filed 3/28/14 P. v. Sanchez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B244261

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA381484) v.

JORGE T. SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:* Defendant Jorge T. Sanchez appeals from his conviction by jury of habitual child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a))1 (count 1) and child molestation (§ 288, subd. (a)) (count 2). The jury acquitted him of sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1)) (count 3). In counts 1 and 2, the jury found true the allegation that the offenses were committed against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subd. (b)(3)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 31 years to life. In count 1, the court imposed the upper term of 16 years, and in count 2, the term of 15 years to life, to be run

* BOREN, P. J ., ASHMANN-GERST, J., FERNS, J.†

† Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 1 All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.

consecutively. Defendant was granted 597 days of custody credits and 90 days of conduct credits. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which she stated that she had failed to find any arguable issues. On July 17, 2013, we informed defendant that he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief containing any issues he wished this court to consider. No brief was received, and the cause was submitted on October 1, 2013. On October 6, 2013, defendant sent this court a letter in Spanish, which was subsequently translated. Defendant stated that the letter regarding his supplemental brief was translated for him incorrectly, and he was unaware that he had to send a brief. On November 19, 2013, this court granted him an extension of time to file his brief until December 28, 2013. On December 5, 2013, defendant filed a letter brief, written in Spanish, that includes the following claims: (1) he disagrees with his appellate lawyer’s opinion that she could find no issues in his case, and he has been informed that this attorney has written a book in which she expressed a negative opinion about men, describing them as being the trash of the world; thus, she could not represent him properly while having this attitude; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in that he did not inform defendant of many of the offenses of which he was accused, which defendant did not realize until midtrial, and he did not interrogate the witnesses as he should have; and (3) he was not brought to trial for a year and a half so that the prosecution could build the case against him. FACTS Prosecution Evidence The record shows that defendant was found guilty of molesting two of his nieces, E. and L. His niece E., the victim in count 1, was 21 years old at the time of trial. Defendant is married to E.’s mother’s sister. From the age of seven, E. and her family lived in Los Angeles in the rear house of a lot on 65th Street. Defendant and his family lived in the front house. E. remembered sitting in defendant’s living room watching TV with her older brother and her cousins when defendant called her into the back hallway.