People v. Perdomo CA1/3

Filed 5/24/24 P. v. Perdomo CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168231

v. (Alameda County JUAN C. CARPIO PERDOMO, Super. Ct. No. 20CR002654) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted Juan C. Carpio Perdomo (Carpio)1 of three counts of lewd acts upon a child, A. Doe, under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).2 The trial court sentenced Carpio to 8 years in prison and imposed a restitution fine of $7,200. Carpio contends the trial court erred by giving jury instruction CALCRIM No. 1193. Carpio further contends the court imposed a restitution fine of $7,200 in the mistaken belief that amount was the minimum it could impose. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2005, Carpio started dating his girlfriend, known as “Neung.” Neung worked as a live-in nanny for a married couple, caring for their

1 We refer to appellant as Carpio as that is his preference. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

daughter. Neung continued working for the family for several years, including after their second child, A., was born in 2006. Neung and Carpio grew close with the family and Carpio became A.’s godfather. In 2019, when A. was 13 years old, A. disclosed to his family that Carpio had sexually abused him when he was 6 years old. A.’s family then filed a police report. In 2022, the district attorney filed an amended information charging Carpio with three counts of lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that Carpio took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offenses (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(11)) and that the victim was “particularly vulnerable” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)). A jury trial took place in May 2022. Prosecution’s Case The prosecution proffered the testimony of several witnesses, including A., A.’s parents, and Dr. Blake Carmichael, an expert in child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). We briefly summarize their testimony here, only as relevant to this appeal. A. testified that one night when he was between the ages of six and eight, Carpio went into A.’s bedroom and got into bed with him. A. knew he was around those ages because of the pajamas he was wearing and the bed he had at the time. Carpio pulled his pants down, exposing his penis, then placed his penis on A.’s leg and rubbed it back and forth. He grabbed A.’s wrist and moved his hand onto Carpio’s penis, forcing A.’s hand up and down until Carpio ejaculated on A.’s body. A. went to the bathroom to try to clean it off, but some of the residue and smell remained, which bothered him. A. returned to his room and saw Carpio fully dressed. A. got back into bed, and Carpio got into bed with him. Carpio again undressed and forced