People v. Perez CA3

Filed 9/17/21 P. v. Perez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092217

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MANCRFECOD20160008687) v.

ERIC FRANK PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Eric Frank Perez guilty of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under the age of 10 years old and the commission of a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years old. Sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison, defendant now contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence at trial of: (1) a 22- year-old prior indecent exposure conviction under Evidence Code section 1108;1 and

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.

1

(2) the state licensing board’s decision to prohibit defendant’s presence at a day care facility. We shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND C., a then six-year-old girl, had attended Jeanette Lewis’s in-home day care since she was eight months old. At some point in time, Lewis became romantically involved with defendant and he moved into the in-home day care with Lewis. C. and her mother were close with Lewis, defendant, and their children. One day in June 2016, C.’s mother picked her up from day care and noticed C. was unusually nervous and fidgety. C.’s mother asked her what was wrong, and after saying “nothing” several times, C. told her mother and her mother’s cousin that defendant had done something to her that day, and described a sexual assault. C.’s mother felt very upset. She asked C. numerous times what had happened, asking open-ended questions, and C. told her the same story every time. When C. tried to go to the bathroom, she looked scared and said it “hurt to poop.” The next morning, C.’s mother asked her again what happened, and C. repeated the details of defendant’s sexual assault. C.’s mother immediately took her to the hospital and requested a police officer. C.’s primary complaint at the hospital was that “she hurt from her pee hole to her butt.” Given the suspected sexual abuse, Manteca Police Officer Benedict Jemerigbe came to the hospital and took C.’s statement. Shortly thereafter, a forensic examiner interviewed C. C. told the forensic examiner that she had been swimming outside at day care with two other children when defendant called her in the house. C. came inside, and defendant took C. into Lewis’s daughter’s bedroom. C. turned around and defendant put cream on her “butt.” He also put cream on his “wiener.” C. said that defendant put his “wiener” inside her “butt,” describing that he got down on her and “squeezed” her. She felt him “squeeze[] [her] so hard” that she cried from the pain and called out for help. He slowly wiped her “butt” and “squeezed [her] butt . . . all the way inside again” and then was