People v. Vasquez CA3

Filed 8/5/14 P. v. Vasquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C074588

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F04054 & 12F04621) HUMBERTO MAGDELENO VASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Humberto Magdeleno Vasquez asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record discloses that the amended abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the orally imposed sentence and reflect that all offenses were committed in 2012. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

I The victim was born in October 1999. She lived with her mother, her two younger sisters, her infant brother, and defendant, the mother’s boyfriend of about five years. The victim shared a bedroom with her sisters. One morning in March 2012, while the mother was at work, defendant asked the victim to stay home from school and babysit while defendant went to the bank. When the victim protested that she had to leave for school, defendant tried to lock her in her bedroom to prevent her from leaving. When a visitor departed from the house, the victim fled from the house and went to school. Defendant told the victim that he would tell the mother about the victim’s departure, which was a half hour earlier than usual. Defendant did not touch the victim in any inappropriate manner during the incident. The victim went straight to school. She told her friend that defendant had tried to lock her in her bedroom. The victim later told a forensic interviewer that defendant had locked her in the bedroom. On a Sunday a couple of months later, the victim planned to attend an evening church service. While the mother was at work and the siblings were outside, the victim heard defendant locking the doors of the residence. Defendant then entered the victim’s bedroom and locked the door. The victim asked why he was there and why he had locked the door, but he did not answer. Instead he pushed her onto the bed and told her to dress in sweat pants he had retrieved from a cabinet. The victim unlocked the door, went to a nearby bathroom, and dressed in the sweat pants. When the victim returned to the bedroom she saw defendant closing the window blinds in the room. She asked why he was closing the blinds but he did not answer. Defendant closed and locked the bedroom door. Defendant put the victim on the floor and removed her sweatpants and underwear. He then removed all of his clothing except a T-shirt. Defendant put his penis in the