People v. Jacobo-Contreras CA3

Filed 9/29/23 P. v. Jacobo-Contreras CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095837

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P18CRF0474)

v.

JOSE MERCED JACOBO-CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jose Merced Jacobo-Contreras appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of multiple sexual offenses with minors entrusted to his care. On appeal, he asserts his sentence of 125 years to life in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and section 17 of article I of the California Constitution. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Given the nature of the issues presented in this appeal, a detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s convictions is unnecessary. It suffices to say, when John

1

Doe was seven years old and Jane Doe was in kindergarten and they were living with defendant, defendant began requiring them to masturbate him on a nearly daily basis while their mother was working. Defendant also repeatedly sodomized and copulated Jane Doe during this period. He would also touch her genital area and force her to watch him masturbate. Based on their reports of the incidents and their testimony, defendant was charged with and convicted of multiple counts of sodomy with a child under the age of 10 with Jane Doe (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a); counts 1-2);1 multiple counts of committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 3-6); and continuous sexual abuse of John Doe with three or more acts over three or more months of substantial sexual conduct (§§ 288.5, 1203.066, subd. (b); count 7). Additionally, a multiple victim enhancement was alleged and sustained (§ 667.61). John Doe presented a statement at defendant’s sentencing that he regretted having trusted defendant, that he was traumatized by the things defendant did to him and to his sister, and that defendant had ruined a large part of his life. The People sought the maximum sentence for defendant, 125 years to life. As factors in aggravation the People argued the victims’ vulnerability, based on their ages and the position of trust defendant was placed in. The People also argued defendant committed these acts repeatedly and over a period of several months, if not years. In opposition, defendant argued his young age of 34, that he had no prior criminal record, and that he was married with three children warranted a lesser sentence. Additionally, defendant argued imposing consecutive sentences of 25 years to life would mean he would not be eligible for parole until he was 84 years old, making his sentence one that would be impossible to serve