People v. Chan CA2/4

Filed 9/1/16 P. v. Chan CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B262909

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA087106) v.

LEMUEL CHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge. Affirmed. Doris M. LeRoy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Russell A. Lehman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Lemuel Chan of sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (d); count 1), sexual penetration on a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count 5), oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); count 4), and lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 2, 3, and 6).1 In the lewd act counts, the jury found that the crimes were committed against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b) and (e)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 3 years on count 1, and consecutive terms of 15 years to life on counts 2, 3, and 6, with concurrent terms on the remaining counts. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial request to substitute counsel. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND Trial Evidence Because the evidence supporting the charges is not relevant to the sole issue raised on appeal, we only briefly summarize it. The victims of defendant’s crimes were his daughters, E. (counts 1, 2, and 3) and D. (counts 4, 5, and 6). On the night of April 4, 2013, while sleeping in the bedroom she shared with her parents and siblings, E. (then under 14 years old) awoke to find defendant digitally penetrating her. When E.’s mother got home from work, E. sat up in bed and began crying. E.’s mother said words to the effect of, “Not again,” and called the police. Defendant told the first responding Sheriff’s Deputy, “I touched my daughter,” and was arrested. Defendant had committed a similar act against E. about a year earlier, when he rubbed her vagina. After that occasion, E. tried to call 911, but her grandfather