People v. Munoz CA5

Filed 6/9/15 P. v. Munoz CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F067334 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRM021350) v.

LUIS MIGUEL MUNOZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Marilyn G. Burkhardt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

A jury found appellant, Luis Miguel Munoz, guilty of contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (a)),1 and attending an arranged illicit meeting with a minor (§ 288.4, subd. (b)). Appellant was sentenced to serve nine months in jail and was credited with 116 days. The trial court further sentenced him to three years in state prison but suspended execution of the sentence and instead placed him on 60 months of felony probation. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court violated his federal and constitutional rights to due process when it refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment, requiring reversal of his conviction. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Testimony of Detective Dabney On January 5, 2012, Detective Dabney of the Central California Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) began a proactive internet investigation on Craigslist2 to identify male sexual predators seeking contact with young girls. A particular section on Craigslist, “Casual Encounters,” was targeted because past investigations indicated it was a common site men use when seeking women. Appellant’s particular advertisement caught Dabney’s attention. The posting stated “How much would you charge for the panties you are wearing?” There was no indication that appellant was seeking panties from a juvenile.3 Posing as a 13-year-old girl with a screen name “Chavalita,” Dabney responded to the ad by email. Chavalita said she had panties if appellant wanted to buy them. She told appellant she was 13 years old and needed the money. She also offered to sell her mother’s panties, who she