People v. Dominguez CA4/3

Filed 1/8/15 P. v. Dominguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G048840

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11NF0900)

FRANCISCO SERNA DOMINGUEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

In re FRANCISCO SERNA DOMINGUEZ G049746 on Habeas Corpus.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carla M. Singer, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Original proceedings; petition for a writ of habeas corpus, after judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. Order to show cause issued. Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant, Petitioner, and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * A jury convicted Francisco Serna Dominguez of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); count 1; all further statutory references are to this code), and lewd act with a child younger than 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); count 2). The court imposed a term of 15 years to life on count 1, and a consecutive term of two years on count 2, stayed pursuant to section 654. This consolidated petition for writ of habeas corpus and appeal presents one issue. Dominguez argues he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding a pre-preliminary hearing settlement offer of six years. The Attorney General concedes Dominguez’s petition states a prima facie case for writ relief. We agree and issue an order to show cause returnable to the superior court, and dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTS In early March 2011, R.S. entrusted the care of her then-six-year-old daughter, D.C., to her neighbor, G.T., during working hours. Dominguez lived with G.T. One day, D.C. complained to her mother that “her private part was hurting” after she and her mother got home from G.T.’s house. R.S. asked D.C. what happened, and D.C. said Dominguez touched her private part “and it hurts.” D.C. also said Dominguez called her into the garage, away from G.T., pulled her pants and underwear down, touched her private part, and they watched a pornographic movie together. The next day, D.C. repeated her story and described the movie Dominguez showed her. R.S. and D.C. soon moved from their residence, but R.S. did not notify the police immediately. R.S. did contact the police around March 22 and a police investigator conducted a recorded interview of D.C. During this interview, D.C. said Dominguez touched the inside of her private part. Using a doll, D.C. showed the investigator how