People v. Han CA4/3

Filed 12/9/22 P. v. Han 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G060949

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17WF0851)

VINCENT HAN, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. 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, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Vincent Han was sentenced to multiple indeterminate life sentences, plus a determinate term of eight years, for sexually abusing his niece. On appeal, he contends: 1) The standard jury instruction on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) violates due process; 2) his determinate sentence must be reversed in light of two recently enacted laws; and 3) the trial court erred by ordering him to pay a $300 restitution fine. We reverse appellant’s determinate sentence and remand for a limited resentencing hearing. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. FACTS Caleigh H., appellant’s niece, was 22 years old at the time of trial in 2021. She testified her family trusted appellant and was somewhat beholden to him because he had helped them immigrate to the United States from Vietnam when was she was young. In fact, appellant was living with Caleigh’s family at their home in Garden Grove when this case arose back in 2009. At that time, Caleigh’s parents worked long hours, so appellant often looked after Caleigh and her younger brother. Once, while Caleigh was taking a shower, appellant entered the shower unannounced and started washing her. Caleigh told appellant she was old enough to wash herself and made it clear she wanted him to stop. However, appellant proceeded to touch her breasts and vagina under the guise of washing her. He also told Caleigh her parents would be very sad if she mentioned anything to them about the incident, so she kept it to herself. Further abuse ensued. In addition to lewdly touching Caleigh in the shower on two subsequent occasions, appellant started molesting her in other ways. His modus operandi was to corner Caleigh in her bedroom and force her to orally copulate him. Then he would orally copulate and rape her. Caleigh resisted the abuse as best she could, but appellant used his size and strength to impose himself on her. By Caleigh’s estimate, he raped and orally copulated her 10-20 times between the ages of 11 and 13.