People v. Velasquez CA1/5

Filed 12/9/14 P. v. Velasquez CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A138636 v. EDGAR VELASQUEZ, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-121389-1) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Edgar Velasquez appeals from a sentence imposed after his no contest plea. We affirm. BACKGROUND In March 2013, appellant pled no contest to forcible oral copulation upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(B)), forcible lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), and four counts of lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The charges were based on multiple incidents in which appellant sexually molested the victim, Jane Doe. The incidents took place approximately six years earlier, when appellant was around 17 years old and Doe was around 10 years old. Appellant’s plea did not specify a sentence. At the time of his plea, appellant was informed the maximum aggregate sentence was 20 years imprisonment.

1

Jane Doe’s father made a statement at the sentencing hearing.1 He spoke about other family members and friends who had been victims of sexual assault, and noted none of the perpetrators had been punished. He also spoke about the impact of appellant’s crimes on Jane Doe. He stated she had tried to commit suicide a number of times as a result of the crimes. He also presented the following statement from Jane Doe about the impact of the crime: “Since this incident I have been suffering from depression. I have trouble being around and getting along with people.” Appellant’s lawyer urged the court to impose a sentence of six years, arguing in mitigation appellant was 17 at the time of the crimes, had since become employed and married, and was cooperative with the police. The People asked for a sentence of eight years. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of eight years. The court provided the following statement of reasons: “One of the reasons this came to me with a reduced posture is I am also aware of the fact that many youth at the age of 17 make all sorts of mistakes in their lives and they don’t grow and mature until they are pretty much in their mid 20’s. That was one of the factors that brought this from what originally was brought to me somewhat as a 12 year case to somewhere between six to eight years. . . . [¶] But I really did want to hear from the victim’s family. I wanted to know the impact. The impression I had—and I don’t blame the defense attorney, but the impression I had was that the victim was sympathetic to the defendant, didn’t want to see him go to prison; and I almost got the sense that there was not the severe damage that he had caused. [¶] In listening to [the victim’s father] it is clear—and should have been obvious to me even without the testimony—that a ten year old child—and she was a child—should never have been treated in this way. And having that mark—when we speak of a 17 year old being youthful, a child that is hurt at ten is still wounded at 50. [¶] There is not a time in her life that she will forget this, that it won’t mark her in some ways—in the way that she