People v. Williams CA1/2

Filed 3/22/16 P. v. Williams CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143871 v. PATRICK ALLEN WILLIAMS, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR932173) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Patrick Allen Williams guilty of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and he was sentenced to state prison for eight years. His sole claim of error is that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in three particulars. We conclude this contention lacks merit, and affirm. BACKGROUND In brief, defendant is the father of the victim, who will hereafter be referred to as such. They lived with an infant sister, and defendant’s wife, who was also the victim’s mother, and will hereafter be referred to as such. The three of them initially lived with the wife’s mother, who was also the victim’s grandmother, who will hereafter be referred to the grandmother. Thereafter, and at most relevant times, defendant, his wife, and the victim lived in a trailer adjacent to the home of the wife’s grandmother and the victim’s great-grandmother. This woman will be referred to as the great-grandmother. And they were living in this trailer when in March 2013 the victim made her initial allegation of sexual abuse by defendant.

1

The trial occurred in October of the following year. The prosecution’s case-in- chief commenced with the six-year-old victim, who had been found qualified to testify at the conclusion of a hearing held pursuant to Evidence Code section 402. The victim told the jury that she “used to live” with defendant, “when he had sex with me.” Defendant put his “dick” “in my mouth,” and “it happened a lot.” The family was getting ready to move when the victim told the grandmother about this situation, and “made her call the cops on him” so that he would stop. A prominent theme of defense counsel’s cross- examination was to discover whether the victim had been coached in her testimony by various family members. The grandmother testified that the family had decided to move to Utah when the victim approached and told her about what defendant was doing to her with his “dick.” After discussing the matter with the great-grandmother, the grandmother “called CPS.” Defense cross-examination elicited that the call was made two days before the planned move, when the grandmother was depressed and seeing a physician “because my husband had left.” Sherri De La Torre, a Lake County Child Welfare Services social worker, was the first professional called to the scene. She arrived at the grandmother’s home on March 4, 2013. It was then she realized that she was a social acquaintance of the grandmother, which De La Torre believed posed a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, De La Torre did an initial interview with the victim, alone. De La Torre was sensitive to signs of coaching by the grandmother, but she detected no undue influence. De La Torre also took account of the grandmother telling her that the family was moving that day. The victim told De La Torre that “daddy had made her bounce on his dick,” and did so “all the time.” De La Torre posed standard questions designed to test if the victim knew the difference between truth and falsehood. De La Torre believed the victim knew the difference. Social worker Carrie Bridges arrived to relieve De La Torre. She was met by Deputy Sheriff Keener. After an initial period of feeling uncomfortable with the strangers, the victim began answering their questions. De La Torre remained, not to ask