People v. Ruiz CA2/6

Filed 8/23/16 P. v. Ruiz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B260423 (Super. Ct. No. 1431137) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

LONGINOS LUIS REYES RUIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted appellant Longinos Luis Reyes Ruiz of four counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child under 10 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)),1 two counts of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child by rape (§ 269, subd. (a)(1)), two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by oral copulation (id., subd. (a)(4)), and two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (a)).2 He was sentenced to prison for a determinate six-year term on the two counts of dissuading a witness and an

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 In addition, when polled jurors unanimously indicated that they had found appellant guilty of an additional count of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child under 10 and an additional count of aggravated sexual assault of a child by rape. After the jury was dismissed, the trial court discovered that jurors had filled out and signed both “guilty” and “not guilty” verdict forms. The trial court declared a mistrial as to those counts, and the prosecutor dismissed them.

indeterminate term of 110 years to life on the remaining counts. The trial court stayed punishment on the three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. (§ 654.) Appellant contends that the trial court erred by using an inappropriate jury unanimity instruction and by admitting and instructing on evidence of uncharged offenses. In addition, he contends that the evidence did not support two separate convictions for dissuading a witness or his convictions in general. We affirm. FACTS Prosecution Evidence Yolanda G. has three daughters: one, Y.G., with appellant, and two, M.G. and the victim (V.G.), from a previous relationship.3 Yolanda was arrested in March 2011 and subsequently deported. Her daughters stayed with appellant for about 10 months. V.G. and M.G. then moved in with Yolanda’s sister Carmela G. When they were staying with appellant, the girls at first slept in their own bedroom. After Yolanda was arrested, somebody else slept in that bedroom and the girls slept in appellant’s bedroom. Later, when appellant’s partner, Florencia Reyes, moved in with him, the girls slept in the living room. V.G. testified that appellant “used to touch [her]” at night in his room when they were alone. He would touch her under her clothes on her breasts. “A couple times” he touched her inside her vagina. He would bring her to his room and take off her clothes. Sometimes she woke up while he was undressing her. One time while she was asleep he took a photo of her in which her breasts and vagina were visible. She learned about the photo because she saw it on his cell phone. Once, V.G. woke up and appellant was on top of her with his penis inside her vagina. She tried to get away, but could not. He removed his penis and “[g]reen goo” came out. She ran out and took a shower to clean herself.