People v. Castaneda CA2/6
Filed 1/26/24 P. v. Castaneda CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B328158 (Super. Ct. No. 2020016395) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
JESUS ZAVALA CASTANEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Jesus Zavala Castaneda1 appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of committing two counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code,2 § 288, subd. (a)) and found true allegations that the victim, V.M., was particularly
1 We note that appellant’s last name is spelled “Castaneda” in the record and the parties’ briefs and “Casteneda” in the abstract of judgment.
2 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.
vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)) and that Castaneda took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit his crimes (id., rule 4.421(a)(11)). The trial court sentenced him to eight years in state prison. Castaneda contends: (1) the prosecutor’s closing argument was deceptive, (2) there was insufficient evidence that count 1 occurred on a specific date, and (3) the trial court erred in instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1193 regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Molestation of V.M. V.M. is Castaneda’s niece. She and her mother, M.C., lived with Castaneda until December 2018, when V.M. was in the seventh grade. After they moved, M.C. would drop V.M. off at Castaneda’s house so she could take the bus to school. In June 2019, Castaneda molested V.M. while she was taking a morning nap. Castaneda came into the room she was sleeping in, rubbed her feet, and moved his hand up her leg towards her hips. He then moved his hand under her shirt, massaged her breast, and started moaning. He looked at V.M.’s crotch and asked her if she wanted him to touch her vagina. V.M. declined. Castaneda had asked V.M. if she wanted him to get food for her. V.M. said yes and waited for Castaneda to return with it. Castaneda told V.M. not to tell anyone and that he wouldn’t do it again. V.M. said that Castaneda had massaged her breasts prior to June 2019. She testified that Castaneda’s massages “would start with [her] back and . . . go under [her] shirt. He would . . . pass his hand through [her] bra strap . . . and then . . . would flip [her] around and massage . . . [her] stomach and . . . breasts.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)