People v. Sosa CA2/6

Filed 8/18/16 P. v. Sosa CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B266502 (Super. Ct. No. F487456) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ELIAS RAMIREZ SOSA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Elias Ramirez Sosa was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse, in violation of Penal Code section 288.5,1 count 1, and child molestation, in violation of section 288, subdivision (a), counts 2 through 9. Statute of limitations extension allegations (§ 803, subd. (i)) and multiple victim allegations (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4)(5)) were found true. Appellant was sentenced to a total term of 132 years to life in prison, comprised of the midterm of 12 years on count 1, and 15 years to life on counts 2 through 9, to run consecutively. Appellant was credited with 961 days of precommitment confinement. Appellant’s convictions involve the molestation of four children over a period of 18 years. Count 1 alleged violations occurring between 1994 and 1997 against J. Doe (J.); count 2 alleged a violation occurring between 1997 and 1999 against J.;

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

counts 3 and 4 alleged violations occurring between 1999 and 2003 against D. Doe (D.); counts 5, 6, and 7 alleged violations occurring between 2002 and 2007 against R. Doe (R.); and counts 8 and 9 alleged violations occurring between 2006 and 2012 against I. Doe (I.). All victims were under the age of 14 at the time of the offenses, and three are related to appellant. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that his convictions on counts 3 and 4 involving D. lack sufficient evidence. We affirm. FACTS D. is appellant’s granddaughter. She and her immediate family lived with appellant when D. was in the second, third and fourth grades, and she visited his house frequently when she was five or six years old. The family had various animals at the house. When D. was five or six years old, she would regularly feed the animals with appellant. During those feedings, appellant would pick her up and slowly rub or massage her vagina through her clothes. He did so on multiple occasions. D. became aware that the touchings were more than an accident or incidental when she was sleeping over at a friend’s house and the friend recounted her own experience of being touched inappropriately by someone. The friend did not believe D. would understand how she felt, but D. told her friend that she “‘went through the same thing’” with her grandpa. D., who was 15 or 16 at the time, did not tell her parents because she did not want to start “a family feud” or “have that side of the family disown us.” In April 2012, D.’s father told D. that appellant had sexually abused her cousin, I., and asked if it had also happened to her. D. admitted that it had, prompting the family to contact the police. Testifying as an adult at trial, D. stated she had no doubt that the inappropriate touchings had occurred and that they were not accidental. At the time of trial, I. was 12 years old. Appellant is her great-grandfather. I. visited her great-grandparents frequently. When she was about six, appellant began to touch her inappropriately. The first time, I. was watching television alone in the living room and appellant touched her “bottom.” He went inside her underpants and touched her vagina for “minutes.” When I.’s mother opened the door, appellant moved away.