People v. Bryson CA4/1

Filed 1/7/21 P. v. Bryson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076683

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD268146)

RONALD GENE BRYSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Esteban Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Steve Oetting and Heather B. Arambarri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION Defendant Ronald Gene Bryson appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of six counts of committing lewd acts against minor sisters Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a);

counts 2–5, 7–8).1 The jury found true allegations that the defendant committed offenses against multiple victims (§ 667.61, subds. (e)(4), (j)(2)) and, with respect to count 4, the jury found true an allegation that the defendant inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced the defendant to six consecutive terms of 25 years to life, plus a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement, for an aggregate term of 153 years to life. The defendant asserts the trial court violated the ban on dual use of facts by allegedly relying on the same fact—the existence of multiple victims—both to impose the indeterminate 25-to-life terms under the One Strike Law (§ 667.61) and to run those terms consecutively rather than concurrently. In the alternative, the defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of the consecutive terms. We conclude the defendant’s first argument is forfeited and both arguments are meritless. Therefore, we affirm the judgment. II BACKGROUND In 2014, 12-year-old sisters Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 moved into their aunt’s apartment together with other members of their immediate family. The defendant was in an on-again, off-again romantic relationship