Filed 9/18/18 P. v. Rojas CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DOMINGO DIEGO ROJAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D072629
(Super. Ct. No. SCN345647) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David G. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Domingo Diego Rojas of 13 counts of committing lewd acts upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subds. (a) & (c)(1).)[1] As to five of the counts, the jury also found true the allegation that he committed the offenses against multiple victims. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (c)(8), & (e)(4).) The jury also found that Rojas had substantial sexual contact with a victim under 14 years of age (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and was convicted of the same offense against multiple victims (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)), rendering Rojas ineligible for probation. The trial court sentenced Rojas to state prison for an indeterminate term of 45 years to life, plus a determinate term of 14 years, eight months.
Rojas appeals. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues warranting reversal. Rojas's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Rojas the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and he has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)
Rojas was a member of a close-knit extended family living in Escondido. At times, he and his wife lived in the same house as his wife's sister and her family. When one of his nieces was about nine years old, Rojas began to grab her and touch her breasts and vagina. Over the years, Rojas continued to molest his niece at least five other times, culminating in an incident in which he climbed on top of his now 15-year-old niece in a car, grabbed her breasts and vagina, pulled her pants off, and put his penis inside her vagina.
A second niece testified that when she was about 10 or 11 years old, Rojas molested her on two separate occasions by grabbing her and touching her breasts and vagina through her clothes.[2]
Rojas also molested two of his great-nieces that lived with him. One great-niece testified that when she was between eight and 10 years old, Rojas grabbed her and touched her vagina through her clothing. The second great-niece testified that when she was in elementary school, Rojas grabbed her and similarly touched her vagina through her clothing.
For many years, the girls told no one about Rojas's conduct, but eventually confided in each other about the incidents. The nieces told their mother and, after Rojas denied any wrongdoing, they decided to report the incidents to the police. At trial, a clinical social worker and child forensic interviewer offered expert opinion testimony that the majority of victims of child sexual abuse do not immediately disclose their abuse, especially when they are victimized by a close family member. She further testified that a young child who has been abused, especially by a close family member, would not necessarily be frightened of their abuser or refuse to be near that person.[3]
Rojas testified at trial and denied all wrongdoing. After a little more than a day of deliberations, the jury found Rojas guilty of 13 of the 15 charged offenses.
DISCUSSION
As noted, Rojas's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Instead, Rojas's counsel identified two possible, but not arguable, issues pursuant to Anders:
(1) "Did the court prejudicially err in allowing the prosecution expert witness, social worker Deborah Davies, to testify concerning the myths and misconceptions about child sex offenders and their victims to educate the jury about such misinformation over defense objection?"
(2) "Did the court prejudicially err in allowing the K-9 support dog to be seated with the complaining witnesses . . . over a defense objection?"
After this court received counsel's brief, we provided Rojas with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and he declined to do so. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have considered the possible issues identified by Rojas's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Rojas in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GUERRERO, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
[1] All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] A third niece testified that Rojas also molested her once by grabbing her breasts and vagina while she slept. This niece explained that she never opened her eyes during the incident because she was pretending to still be asleep, but she believed it was Rojas based on the smell of his breath. The jury found Rojas not guilty of two counts arising from this incident.
[3] At the request of defense counsel, the jury was expressly instructed that the expert's testimony about child sexual abuse reporting was not evidence that Rojas committed the crime and could only be considered "in deciding whether or not the alleged victims' conduct was not inconsistent with the conduct of someone who has been molested, and in evaluating the believability of their testimony."
