People v. Yanez CA2/1

Filed 8/14/15 P. v. Yanez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B259266

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA089267) v.

JOSE R. YANEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stan Blumenfeld, Judge. Affirmed. Jose R. Yanez, in pro. per.; and Tracy J. Dressner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

BACKGROUND On four occasions between 2004 and 2007, appellant Jose R. Yanez sexually molested H.L., his live-in girlfriend’s daughter, beginning when she was eight years old. H.L. reported the abuse in 2013, shortly after her 18th birthday. When she accused Yanez of the abuse during pretextual telephone calls recorded by police, he repeatedly apologized, said he had to account to god for his actions, and wished he could take it all back. When she asked him why he had molested her, he said he felt like she had cared for him. Yanez was charged with committing a lewd or lascivious act with a child under 1 the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), aggravated sexual assault of a child (§ 269), attempted sodomy by force (§§ 286, subd. (c)(2), 664), and oral copulation with a child (§ 288a, subd. (c)(1)). At trial, H.L. testified she waited years to report the abuse because Yanez had told her he would hurt her mother if she reported him. Yanez testified he knew police were listening in on the pretextual telephone calls with H.L., but he carried on with the conversation because it seemed his only road to reuniting with his daughters, H.L.’s younger half sisters. A jury convicted Yanez on all counts and he was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life for the aggravated sexual assault plus six consecutive years on the other counts. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation fine (stayed; § 1202.45), and a $900 sex offender fine (§ 290.3). Yanez was given credit for 555 days of time served plus 83 days of conduct credit. Yanez timely appealed. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal, and after examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On March 20, 2015, we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.