People v. Reyes CA4/3

Filed 4/4/14 P. v. Reyes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G048588

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11WF0180)

ARELI REYES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John D. Conley, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Areli Reyes of oral copulation with a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); count 1; all further statutory references are to this code), attempted oral copulation with a child 10 years or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b), § 664; count 4), two counts of aggravated lewd acts on a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 2 and 5), and five counts of lewd conduct on a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 3 and 6 through 9). The jury also found true multiple victims and substantial sexual conduct allegations in connection with counts 2, 3, 5, and 6 through 9. The trial court sentenced defendant to 45 years to life. In his appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on counts 2 and 5, in that there was insufficient evidence that the lewd acts were compelled by force or duress. We find sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction on these counts. Defendant also urges reversal based on the admission of statements made by him during what he contends was coercive interrogation. We disagree with this contention as well. Finally, he argues his sentence must be vacated because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in not imposing a concurrent term on count 9. The court properly exercised it discretion as the offenses occurred at separate times and involved separate locations. We therefore affirm the judgment.