P. v. Arriaga
Filed 10/5/10 P. v. Arriaga CA4/3
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,
v.
JUAN MANUEL ARRIAGA,
Defendant and Appellant.
G042636
(Super. Ct. No. 07NF2210)
O P I N I O N
Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Richard W. Stanford, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Marta I. Stanton, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W.
Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Kevin Vienna, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Juan
Manuel Arriaga appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts
of oral copulation with a child under 14
years of age. Arriaga argues the
trial court erroneously admitted a photograph of his penis because it was
unduly prejudicial. His contention has
no merit, and we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
John Doe's family was
close to Arriaga, and Doe's father worked with him at a local auto shop, One
Stop Under Car (the Auto Shop), for several years. By 2002, Arriaga was visiting Doe's home at
least three times a week, and the two had grown close enough that Doe referred
to Arriaga as â€
| Description | Juan Manuel Arriaga appeals from a judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of oral copulation with a child under 14 years of age. Arriaga argues the trial court erroneously admitted a photograph of his penis because it was unduly prejudicial. His contention has no merit, and Court affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
