Filed 8/19/26 P. v. Hortillosa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B343007
(Super. Ct. No. 21F-08252)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
TODD ANTHONY
HORTILLOSA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Todd Anthony Hortillosa appeals after he was convicted by
jury of multiple offenses against three minor victims, including:
lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a), counts 1, and
5-10), lewd act upon a child who was 14 or 15 years old (§ 288,
subd. (c)(1), counts 3, 4), and forcible act upon a child (§ 288,
subd. (b)(1), count 11). The jury also found true the multiple
All further undesignated statutory references are to the
1
Penal Code.
victim allegation as to counts 1, and 5 through 10. (§ 667.61,
subds. (b) & (e).)
Appellant waived his right to jury trial on the aggravating
factors, and the trial court found the factors true as alleged. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8), (a)(11), and (b)(1).)
Appellant was sentenced to state prison for a total term of
120 years to life plus 3 years 8 months.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief
that raises no arguable issues. On June 16, 2026, we notified
appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No
supplemental brief was filed.
Appellant and Trent O. were best friends for over 20 years.
Appellant spent a lot of time with Trent and his family. Trent
described appellant as “almost like an uncle” to the children. In
May 2019, 11-year-old Lu. alerted a teacher about inappropriate
touching by appellant. Appellant was subsequently arrested.
During a recorded jailhouse visit with his mother, appellant
made incriminating statements and adoptive admissions.
At trial, the victims testified in detail about the abuse. Am.
also testified that appellant would sometimes lock the bedroom
door when he touched her. When she tried to get up, he would
push her back down.
Appellant testified and denied any inappropriate touching.
The jury did not believe him.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities
and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436.)
2
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
CODY, P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
3
Craig van Rooyen and Rita Coyne Federman, Judges
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.