People v. Guillen CA1/1

Filed 3/16/16 P. v. Guillen CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143978 v. JOSE ANGEL GUILLEN, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-140423-5) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant was convicted of one count of a forcible lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and 10 counts of a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). He now appeals his conviction on the first count for a forcible lewd act on the ground venue was improper in Contra Costa County. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In October 2013, defendant was charged with nine counts of committing a lewd act upon Jane Doe, a child under the age of 14. (§ 288, subd. (a).) All nine counts were alleged to have taken place in Contra Costa County. The complaint was later amended to add a new count for a forcible lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) in Solano and Contra Costa Counties, as well as yet another count for a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). In January 2012, when Jane Doe was 11, she began practicing with defendant’s dance group, Club Guillen, in Vallejo. Jane Doe “friended” Club Guillen’s Facebook

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

page and started communicating with defendant through that account. In or around January 2013, defendant sent Jane Doe private Facebook messages saying she was pretty and he wanted to dance with her. In June 2013, defendant sent Jane Doe more Facebook messages, asking if she had lost her virginity and saying he wanted to touch her. Around the same time, defendant began touching Jane Doe. Jane Doe testified defendant would touch her vagina and breasts, and also put his mouth on her breasts. Defendant touched Jane Doe in his car, as well as at her home in Vallejo. In July or August 2013, defendant took Jane Doe on a road trip to Los Angeles. They were accompanied by defendant’s girlfriend, their baby daughter, and a friend. At the preliminary hearing, Officer Patrick Salamid testified Jane Doe told him defendant attempted to touch her within the first five or 10 minutes of the trip. At trial, Jane Doe testified defendant started trying to touch her about an hour after they left. Jane Doe further testified she was sitting in the front passenger seat next to defendant, and defendant tried to untie her sweatpants. Jane Doe tried push his hands away, but she lacked the strength to resist. While the other passengers were asleep, defendant touched Jane Doe’s vagina and digitally penetrated her. Defendant also whispered to Jane Doe and wrote her messages on his phone, asking why she was resisting. Jane Doe’s mother later found out about the Facebook messages from defendant, and the matter was reported to the police. When interrogated by police, defendant admitted to sending certain Facebook messages to Jane Doe. He also admitted to touching her vagina and kissing her. At trial, defendant denied touching Jane Doe in an inappropriate manner. He said he made false admissions because he had once been tortured by police in Mexico. Defendant also denied writing the incriminating Facebook messages. The jury found defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court imposed the midterm of eight years for the forcible lewd act count, a consecutive two-year term for one of the counts for a lewd act, and concurrent two-year terms on the remaining counts, for a total term of 10 years.