People v. DeGuzman CA2/3

Filed 11/5/15 P. v. DeGuzman CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B258908

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA118241) v.

ANTHONY DeGUZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas McKnew, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Sanger Swysen & Dunkle and Stephen K. Dunkle, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Appellant Anthony DeGuzman appeals from the judgment entered following his jury convictions for multiple sexual offenses.1 The court sentenced appellant to prison for 15 consecutive terms of 15 years to life (counts 1 – 15, respectively), with concurrent determinate terms on the remaining counts. We affirm. ISSUES Appellant claims (1) the trial court erroneously precluded him from cross- examining a witness as an expert and erroneously failed to give sua sponte a limiting instruction concerning Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) testimony, (2) appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel’s failure to impeach witnesses, (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during jury argument, and (4) cumulative error violative of due process occurred. DISCUSSION 1. The Court Did Not Erroneously Restrict Cross-Examination or Commit Instructional Error. a. Pertinent Facts. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Detective Rudy Acevedo, the detective assigned to the present case, testified for the People at trial as follows. Acevedo had been a sworn peace officer for about 24 years and a detective in the Special Victims Bureau (SVB) of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for about eight years. SVB investigated only cases of sexual assault and child abuse. Acevedo received special training to be an 1 The jury convicted appellant on five counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(1) (subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code); counts 1, 4 , 7, 10 & 13), five counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (§ 269, subd. (a)(4); counts 2, 5, 8, 11 & 14), five counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (§ 269, subd. (a)(5); counts 3, 6, 9, 12 & 15), two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 16 & 19), two counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2); counts 17 & 20), and two counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1); counts 18 & 21). There is no dispute as to the sufficiency of the evidence that appellant committed the present offenses; a detailed recitation of their facts is unnecessary to resolve this appeal. It is sufficient to state the evidence established appellant committed the offenses against R., his stepdaughter, in Los Angeles County beginning in about 2001 when she was nine years old.