People v. Chavez CA4/3

Filed 9/3/20 P. v. Chavez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057608

v. (Super. Ct. No. 16NF2084)

CARLOS ANTONIO CHAVEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Robin Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Carlos Antonio Chavez appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of three counts of lewd acts upon a child. Chavez argues the trial court erred by excluding evidence and admitting propensity evidence. As we explain below, neither contention has merit. We affirm the judgment. FACTS An information charged Chavez with five counts of committing a lewd act 1 on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a), counts 1 & 2 (Ruben A.), count 3 (Rosa A.), and counts 4 & 5 (Angel G.)). As to count 1, the information alleged Chavez had substantial sexual conduct with a child (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). As to all the counts, it further alleged he had a prior conviction for a sex offense within the meaning of sections 667.71, subdivision (a), and 667.51, subdivision (a), and that he had committed offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (c). Finally, it alleged he suffered a prior serious and violent felony (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1)), and a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Before trial, the parties learned of a police report that indicated Ruben and Rosa’s father, Manuel A., who would testify concerning the allegations, had previously been arrested for spousal rape and criminal threats. Manuel’s wife alleged he raped her multiple times, and threatened to kill her and Rosa with a knife. No charges were filed. Chavez requested to question Manuel about the alleged conduct to impeach him. The prosecution objected because the evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The trial court denied the request under Evidence Code section 352. The court reasoned that if defense counsel was allowed to inquire about the allegations, it would create another trial within this trial because he was not prosecuted for those offenses. This second trial would not concern Chavez, but whether Manuel committed a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.