P. v. Mungia CA2/7

Filed 6/14/13 P. v. Mungia CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B237322

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA088362) v.

JOSE MUNGUIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed.

Lori-Ann C. Jones for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eric E. Reynolds and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

Jose Munguia (appellant) was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(1)),1 three counts of oral copulation (§ 269, subd. (a)(4)) and three counts of sexual penetration (§ 269, subd. (a)(5)), all committed against a child under the age of 14 and more than seven years younger than appellant. Appellant was sentenced to 135 years to life in prison. He appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow testimony from the victim’s treating physicians, in allowing the prosecution’s child molestation expert to testify beyond the scope of her expertise, and in making certain evidentiary rulings. He also contend the cumulative effect of the evidentiary rulings was prejudicial. We find each of these contentions to be without merit and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the 1990s, appellant moved in with Raquel M. (Mother) and her two daughters, Claudia V. (then two years old) and Julia C. (then 13 years old). Julia had her own bedroom. On two occasions, she woke up at night after someone touched her genital area. The second time it happened, she saw appellant crawling out of her room. When Claudia was five years old, appellant would come into her bedroom when Mother was at work. He would pull off her clothing and underwear and force her to kiss his penis and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. On one occasion, he raped her from behind. The forcible oral copulations and rapes continued almost daily through 2nd grade, while Mother was at work. In 2000 or 2001, when the girls went on a day trip to the lake with appellant and Mother, Julia saw appellant putting his hand in Claudia’s bathing suit. Claudia told Julia what appellant had been doing to her, and Julia told Mother. Appellant was kicked out of the house.