People v. Juarez CA1/5

Filed 8/14/14 P. v. Juarez CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A139906

v. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC077783) LUIS ALONSO JUAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant. _________________________________/

The trial court denied appellant Luis Alonso Juarez’s motion to suppress and he pleaded no contest to one count of continuous sexual abuse of his minor daughter, Jane Doe (Doe) (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a) (Count 1))1 and one count of a lewd and lascivious act on Doe (§ 288, subd. (a) (Count 8)). The court sentenced Juarez to state prison. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed various fines and fees, including a “$365.00 restitution report fee” presumably pursuant to section 1203.1b. Defense counsel did not object. The corresponding sentencing minute order contains this fee, but the abstract of judgment does not. Juarez’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel informed Juarez he had the right to file a supplemental

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

brief on his own behalf but Juarez declined to do so. We ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether this court should order the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment showing the trial court imposed the restitution report fee (§ 1203.1b) and to forward a certified copy of the abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Having reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefs, we order the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment showing the court imposed the $365 restitution report fee pursuant to section 1203.1b and to forward a certified abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide a brief summary of the facts underlying Juarez’s convictions. Juarez is Doe’s father. In 2010, then 13-year-old Doe moved from El Salvador to Juarez’s residence. Almost immediately, Juarez had sex with Doe, orally copulated her, and attempted to sodomize her. In September 2012, Doe reported the abuse to law enforcement. She told police officers her father worked for a painting company, but she did not know the company’s address or telephone number. Doe told the officers Juarez “was not a legal citizen, and did not have” identification. Law enforcement officers had Juarez’s cell phone number but no other way to locate him. In late September 2012, Doe made two pretext calls to Juarez.2 In one call, Juarez “indicated that he was nervous about the phone call, and that he was worried that authorities were listening and recording their conversation.” Juarez told Doe she was going to “ruin” his life if “the police found out” what he had done to her. Based on this information, police officers felt there were “exigent circumstances” because Juarez might “attempt to flee, and with not knowing who he was or having any identification on him, if he were to flee, it would be extremely difficult for law enforcement to locate him.” At that point, a police officer asked dispatch to “contact Mr. Juarez’s cell phone company . . . with the hopes of locating the location of [Juarez’s] cell phone.” The