People v. Royal CA1/3

Filed 9/4/20 P. v. Royal CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A159921 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Napa County Super. Ct. v. No. CR114636)

MARTIN DEMMENT ROYAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Martin Demment Royal (defendant) appeals from a post-judgment order denying his petition to be resentenced under Penal Code section 1170.91.1 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and defendant timely did so. Having examined the entire record and considered defendant’s contentions, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the order.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prior Opinion In 2004, a jury convicted defendant of over 40 felony counts including nine counts of rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), nine counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)), nine counts of penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)), nine counts of incest (§ 285), and nine counts of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 76 years in prison. We affirmed the judgment in People v. Royal (Aug. 15, 2006, A1092160 [nonpub. opn.]). The facts underlying the charges are detailed in our prior opinion and we summarize them here. Defendant’s daughter, M., lived with her mother and had little contact with defendant. When she was 12 years old, M. went to live with defendant and his wife. On her first night there, defendant and M. were alone when defendant reached under M.’s shirt and touched her breast, then “ ‘grabbed [her] face . . . and [] started french kissing [her].’ ” Defendant’s molestation of M. continued; he would “ ‘always just come into [her] room’ ” after she showered and touch her breasts and vagina. When no one else was around, defendant would touch M. “ ‘all over’ ” and have sexual intercourse with her, which made M. feel “ ‘disgusted.’ ” At night, he would go to M.’s bed and ejaculate on her stomach. M. told defendant to stop “ ‘so many times’ ” but he never listened. When M. told defendant’s wife what was happening, the wife “ ‘got mad and she said that she didn’t think that he could have done something like that. . . .’ ” M. did not think the police would listen to her either. She not tell her mother what was going on as she was afraid her mother would be disappointed in her, and because she blamed herself “ ‘for allowing it to happen.’ ”