P. v. Han CA2/6

Filed 4/17/13 P. v. Han CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B238541 (Super. Ct. No. PA069136) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

SANG DAE HAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Sang Dae Han appeals his conviction, by jury, of one count of continuous sexual abuse of a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.5),1 and one count of aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14 years of age. (§ 269, subd. (a)(2).) He was sentenced to state prison for 31 years to life. He appeals contending his conviction of violating section 269 must be reversed because the statute of limitations had run on that offense. He further contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it permitted the victim's mother to testify that the victim had been raped because the mother had no personal knowledge of the incident. We affirm. Facts Appellant married Connie Han in the 1980s. At the time, Connie had a five- year old daughter, Sarah J., from a previous marriage. Sarah testified that appellant molested her on numerous occasions, beginning when she was five years old and ending when she was 12. Appellant would instruct Sarah to take off her clothes and then rub or

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 1

"flick" his penis along her vagina. On some occasions, Sarah would go to sleep in her bed, wearing her pajamas and wake up in appellant's bed, naked. The molestations happened while Connie was out of the house, working at her job as a nurse. On August 1, 1995, appellant placed his penis inside Sarah's vagina. She screamed in pain and appellant stopped. Sarah remembered the date because it was the day she got braces on her teeth. That same day, Sarah disclosed the abuse to a friend, Roxana. Roxana's mother told Connie, who confronted appellant. Appellant left the family house, but returned about one week later. Although they continued to live in the same house, appellant stopped molesting Sarah. Sarah eventually left home for college and later moved to New York, cutting off contact with her family. In 2010, when Sarah was 28 years old, she reported the abuse to police in Los Angeles. She then made a "pretext" telephone call to appellant from the station. During the call, appellant admitted that he molested and raped Sarah. He confirmed that the molestation began when Sarah was in kindergarten and that he raped her on the same day she got her braces. Appellant apologized and said he must have been possessed by a demon when he did these things. Discussion Statute of Limitations Appellant was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, in violation of section 269, subdivision (a)(2). He contends the statute of limitations for a violation of section 269 is set by section 800, which provides: "Except as provided in Section 799, prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for eight years or more . . . shall be commenced within six years after commission of the offense." The limitations period is not extended by section 801.1, he argues, because section 269 is not one of the offenses listed in that section. According to appellant, his prosecution was untimely because it was commenced 15 years after the rape. Appellant is incorrect. A violation of section 269 is "punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 15 years to life." (§ 269, subd. (b).) Section 799 provides that prosecution for an offense punishable by "imprisonment in the state prison for life or for life without the possibility of