People v. Carrillo CA4/3

Filed 11/17/23 P. v. Carrillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062725

v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV18004430)

MIGUEL CARRILLO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Shahla S. Sabet, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Allen G. Weinberg, 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, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Miguel Carrillo appeals from a judgment sentencing him to prison for committing multiple child sex crimes. He raises two instructional claims and two sentencing claims, but none of them warrant extensive discussion because the instructional claims admittedly run counter to California Supreme Court authority, and the sentencing claims are uncontested by respondent. Therefore, in relatively short order, we will reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing but otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTS Angela Doe is appellant’s stepdaughter. From the age of eight to fourteen, appellant touched her breasts, buttocks and vagina on multiple occasions. Appellant molested Angela’s younger sister Claudia in a similar fashion. And, from time to time, he also he touched and orally copulated the vagina of another young girl, Jane Doe, who was staying at his house. The jury convicted appellant of subjecting Jane to continuous sexual abuse and committing seven lewd acts against Angela and Claudia. (Pen. Code, §§ 288.5, subd. (a), 288, subd. (a).)1 In addition, the jury found appellant molested multiple victims for purposes of the One Strike law. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(4).) The trial court sentenced him to 30 years to life in prison for these crimes. DISCUSSION Instructional Issues Pursuant to CALCRIM Nos. 1191A and 1191B, the trial court instructed the jury it could consider evidence of appellant’s uncharged and charged sex offenses as proof he had a propensity to commit child sex crimes.2 Appellant contends these instructions violated his right to due process because they permitted the jury to ignore the