People v. Ruelas CA3

Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Ruelas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077651

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF124267A)

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL RUELAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Miguel Angel Ruelas guilty of one count of a sex crime with a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (a)) and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 288.5, subd. (a)). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1193 relating to child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. We disagree and affirm.

1 Unless otherwise specified, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A Procedural History Defendant was tried twice on these charges. The first trial ended on March 20, 2014, with the trial court declaring a mistrial after determining the jury was unable to reach a verdict. A second trial commenced on August 25, 2014. On September 10, 2014, the jury found defendant guilty of both counts. On October 27, 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to 37 years to life. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. B The Trial Evidence In or around 2002, V.M. began a relationship with defendant. At that time, M. had a son Ma. and a daughter M., who were around two years old. V.M. and defendant married in or around 2005 and their relationship ended in April 2008. During their relationship, V.M. gave birth to two children, Jasmine and Julian. From around June 2008 to May 7, 2013, Ma., M., Jasmine, and Julian stayed with defendant on the weekends. At trial, M. identified defendant as her former stepfather and testified defendant “stuck his penis in [her] butt” when she was eight years old. She further testified defendant threatened to kill her if she told anybody about what had happened. M. also testified defendant put his penis in her butt on several other occasions when she was between the ages of 9 and 12. According to M., defendant continued to threaten to kill her if she told anybody about the abuse. On May 7, 2013, M. approached a yard duty supervisor at her elementary school and told her she had been abused. Later that same day, M. met with one of the school’s vice principals and told her she had been repeatedly molested by defendant. The vice principal subsequently contacted law enforcement officials.