People v. Agaton CA4/3

Filed 11/15/22 P. v. Agaton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G060623

v. (Super. Ct. No. 16WF2052)

SALVADOR DIRCEO AGATON, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Salvador Dirceo Agaton appeals from a lengthy life sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of numerous sex crimes against minors. Appellant contends his convictions must be reversed because the prosecutor committed prejudicial error when she misstated the reasonable doubt standard. As discussed below, we conclude appellant forfeited his claim of prosecutorial error because he did not timely object. Additionally, we reject his related ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he fails to show trial counsel was ineffective. Appellant further contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury it could consider evidence of the charged sex crimes to infer he had a propensity to commit and did commit other charged sex crimes. This argument has been rejected by our Supreme Court, and we are bound to follow that precedent. Accordingly, we affirm.

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant lived in the apartment complex where the five minor victims -- three sisters (E.V., V.V. and D.V.) and their two friends (E.F. and M.R.) –lived. E.F. and M.R. testified he often grabbed them by their waist or butt, twirled them and throw them up in the air. On one occasion, when the five minors were playing outside, appellant saw them from the nearby laundry room and exposed his penis to them while laughing. On another occasion, appellant molested three victims while they were playing together. V.V. testified that when she had to stay inside her apartment, she would play near an open window and interact with her friends who were outside. One time, V.V., D.V. and E.F were playing inside while appellant was outside by the window when appellant told E.F. and V.V. to come closer. During this incident, appellant grabbed E.F. and pulled down E.F.’s pants and underwear and touched her vaginal area. He told V.V. to come closer and rubbed V.V.’s vaginal area over her underwear with his hand, before pulling her underwear down and rubbed her vaginal area “skin to skin.” He also touched D.V. in a similar manner.