P. v. Rosales CA2/8

Filed 8/28/26 P. v. Rosales CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B345655

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LA099742
v.

JOSE MARTIN ROSALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Thomas Rubinson, Judge. Affirmed.
Randy S. Kravis, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Jose Martin Rosales claims we must reverse his conviction
for soliciting a minor because the trial court erroneously refused
to instruct the jury on entrapment.
No instruction was warranted. Rosales doggedly pursued
the chance to have sex with someone he believed was 16. The
required police pressure was absent. In any event, refusing the
instruction was harmless. We affirm.
I
Around 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, August 5, 2023, Officer
Raymond Ravago posted an advertisement on DoubleList.com.
Ravago was part of a specialized police unit that monitors the
internet for child predators. DoubleList.com is a website where
adults can meet and arrange “hookups.”
Ravago’s post read: “Looking 2 hangout tonight. super
bored” “heyyyy boys. I have the house to myself, looking to
hangout and have some fun. up for anything. just want to have a
good time. 5 ft shorty[ ] brown hair.”
Under “Details,” the listing stated, “18 years old, in (SFV).”
Ravago explained the website defaults to this age and does not
allow users to list a younger age.
Rosales was one of many responders to Ravago’s post. At
9:50 p.m., he sent a picture of himself and wrote (with our
emphasis): “Hi im jose. Can i cum over for some fun? Im 39 yr
old latino 6 ft average body and a nice thick cock. Text me so we
can get together.”
Ravago responded two hours later, posing as a female
named Sammy Ramirez. “Sammy” invited Rosales to
communicate through a messaging application called “Kik” or by
text message. (From now on, when Ravago is posing as Sammy,

2
we simply refer to Sammy or she/her. All italics in the messages
between Rosales and Sammy are ours.)
Rosales sent Sammy a Kik message after midnight on
Sunday. He asked if Sammy was still looking for “some
cumpany.” “Can i cum over” he inquired. He asked her to send
him “sexy pics.” Sammy said it was getting late but she would be
alone the next day.
Close to noon on Sunday, Rosales sent Sammy a text
message reminding her she said she would be alone. He asked if
he could “cum” over.
They texted about what to do. Rosales said he wanted to
get to know Sammy “intimately.” Sammy wrote that she was
“shy and inexperienced.” Rosales said he could show her many
things and asked what she was willing to do. He asked for
“naughty pics.” Sammy did not answer for a while.
At 3:19, she apologized for being busy and then asked, “So
if we kick it what are we gonna do? I have to be home before my
mom gets home.” Rosales suggested they “kick it” (hang out) in
his van. He said he wanted to “pound that pussy.”
“Wow that sounds amazing” Sammy responded.
They went back and forth about pictures. Ravago sent
Rosales a photo of his female police partner, edited to make her
appear more childlike.
Rosales asked when he could show Sammy what he wanted
to do to her. He suggested that night (Sunday, August 6th).
Sammy then revealed she was 16 years old. Their
exchange, condensed to omit extra spacing, was as follows:
Sammy: “I’m down today but babe I need to make sure you
are ok with one thing”
Rosales: “Ok with wat?”

3
Sammy: “im kinda young. im really into older and
experienced men.”
Rosales: “How young? How old are you? Have you been
with an older man before!?”
Sammy: “I’m gonna be 17 soon ?”
Rosales: “Are you a virgin”
Sammy: “Yes I’ve been with much much older men”
Rosales: “Are you trying to set me up to get caught or
something? Be honest please”
Sammy: “Are you into younger girls?”
Rosales: “Never have been with any before but i willing to
try it[.] Ur not trying to get me set up are you? Wyd?”
Sammy: “Really? I only like to be with older men. They
treat me better than boys my age[.] Set up? What u mean”
Rosales: “Oh ok So if we cant kick it today when can you?
Just asking? Could u kick it late at night or tomorrow?”
Sammy revealed she was 16 years old around 4:00 on
Sunday afternoon, after a couple hours of messaging with
Rosales. The timing becomes important, for Rosales did not end
up driving to their chosen meeting spot until the following
Friday.
Shortly after learning Sammy was underage, Rosales wrote
about some of the sex acts he wanted to try with her. He
reiterated that he wanted to “[p]ound your pussy mouth and ass”
and asked if she had done that before. Sammy responded she
had not had anal sex. Rosales asked if she would try it and if she
had ever “sucked a cock before?” Sammy said she had and was
“down to try.” Rosales said he would try to “stuff all your holes”
and make her his “lil slut.” He wanted to videotape her. He

4
asked if she would do “everything I say.” His only rule was “U
cant tell me no!”
Ravago eventually sent Rosales another edited photo of his
partner.
They discussed logistics.
Rosales wanted to know when Sammy’s mother would be
asleep. He asked her to “sneak out” to meet him. Sammy agreed,
as she sneaks out all the time.
Sammy gave Rosales her home address in Sherman Oaks.
Rosales said he lived “like an hour” away in Oxnard. He asked if
there was a “secluded park” near her home and then suggested
they meet at a nearby 7-Eleven store. They agreed to meet at
10:30 that evening. Sammy asked Rosales to get “trulys”—an
alcoholic drink. He said he would.
Ravago and his team went to the store and waited. Rosales
did not come.
Close to 11 p.m., Sammy messaged Rosales asking where
he was. She said she was “here” and he stood her up. Rosales
apologized. He explained he did not have a phone and just got
home. The freeway was “stopped” due to “some kind of an
accident.” He made it to Calabasas before turning around. He
promised he could make it up to her and would “make it right
tuesday night baby.”
Sammy said she was waiting alone there forever, she was
really looking forward to seeing him, and she was really upset.
She asked if he was “even real.” She wrote that she was going
camping with her cousins and would come back Wednesday.
Ravago testified he came up with the camping trip idea because
he would be off duty.

5
Rosales assured Sammy he was real, he too was excited to
see her, and things just did not work out this time. Sammy said
she forgave him, but he had to prove he was real and show up
next time. Rosales said he would. “Fuck im so horny right now
too” he added. Sammy asked for another picture of him to prove
he was real. Rosales sent another photo, and Sammy said she
believed him.
Ravago testified about his motive for this request: he
wanted to make sure he was speaking to the original responder
and get another “positive identifier” for the undercover operation.
A little after midnight, Rosales asked Sammy what she was
doing. She said she was going to get ready for bed “since
someone flaked on me lol.” Rosales begged for more pictures of
her so he would “have something to look at while i get myself off
tonight baby. Visual aid to jack off too gorgeous.” Sammy
refused, reiterating that she needed to get to know him first and
she was shy. Rosales then wondered if she was real, and Sammy
assured him she was: “What u mean? I showed up and waited for
you, ya I’m real.”
Rosales reconnected with Sammy a little after midnight on
Wednesday, August 9th. He texted, “Are we gonna kick it
tomorrow baby?” Sammy responded a little before 8:00 that
morning. She asked what he wanted to do. Rosales replied,
“Same thing we talked about last time.” They texted a bit about
her trip.
Later on, Rosales reported he was not feeling well. Sammy
said she was tired from camping anyway. The messaged about
meeting the next day.
Around 4 p.m. on Thursday, August 10th, Sammy wrote,
“Hello?” Rosales responded at around 5:30, apologizing that he

6
did not have reception at work and “just got off.” They discussed
meeting. Sammy said it would be harder to sneak out that day
because her grandmother and aunt were over. Rosales suggested
meeting tomorrow if it was “too hard to sneak out” today—he did
not want her to “get in trouble.” They agreed to meet Friday.
Sammy suggested meeting at her house. Rosales asked if
she had ever taken “an old man” to her house. Sammy replied,
“Baby u aren’t an old man. But no I haven’t.” Rosales worried
about a neighbor spotting them and telling Sammy’s mother. He
said his car would be safest. Then he commented: “I am still
kinda feel like i might be getting set up to get in trouble. Like its
a trap. Cuz its against the law for us to have sex.” “Ur not setting
me up to get busted right?” Sammy answered, “Baby it ain’t no
set up. I told u already I’ve been wit older men. Never been a
problem.”
Rosales began texting Sammy at 7:03 the next morning,
Friday, August 11th. They both said they were excited to meet.
Rosales asked if Sammy was going to wear something sexy. She
said she was thinking of a short dress for him. Rosales seemed
pleased and suggested “no panties” would be “really hot. . . . will
make it a lot easier to do it with a dress on. Just have to lift it up
to get started.” Rosales told Sammy not to wear underwear,
“unless its a thong or g string baby.”
They agreed to meet at 4 p.m. at the nearby 7-Eleven.
Sammy asked Rosales to get some “trulys” and protection.
Rosales questioned whether they had to use protection because
he wanted to “do u raw to feel me deep inside you.” He wanted to
know the sex acts with which Sammy was comfortable and
whether there were any limits. He told Sammy what he wanted
to do: “Everything. Stuff all your holes? Eat your ass? Cum in

7
your mouth and have you swallow it? Basically fuck you like a
porn star baby.” Rosales also wanted to make a video of them
“fucking hard.” He suggested they smoke crystal
methamphetamine so they could “fuck for hours.” Sammy said
she was “down” for all of it.
Rosales again asked for a “naughty pic” and Sammy again
refused. She explained she was nervous and shy and this was
why she needed alcohol.
They stopped texting around 3 p.m. Sammy said she would
see Rosales at the 7-Eleven. Rosales asked what color dress she
was wearing. Sammy said it would be black or light pink. She
asked him not to make her look stupid again and flake.
Ravago and his team waited at the 7-Eleven. Around 5
p.m., Ravago spotted a green van pull into the parking lot.
Ravago recognized Rosales as the driver from the photographs he
received via text. Rosales stayed in the driver’s seat looking
towards the 7-Eleven. After a while, the officers approached the
van and took Rosales into custody. They found a tablet inside the
van.
Rosales’ identification card showed he was 39 years old and
lived in Oxnard. The parties stipulated that Rosales used the
tablet to send the messages at issue.
The jury saw all of the messages and heard from Ravago
and his supervisor.
The defense called a forensic psychologist as its only
witness. This psychologist had reviewed the messages and police
reports and had interviewed Rosales. She had him take a risk
assessment test. She found nothing suggesting a proclivity to
sexual preoccupations with minors, and she opined he posed a

8
below average danger to adolescents. Nevertheless, she
recommended he attend therapy for sex offenders.
Outside of the jury’s presence, the parties and the trial
court discussed jury instructions. Defense counsel requested an
instruction on entrapment. The trial court denied the request,
relying chiefly on People v. Fromuth (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 91
(Fromuth).
Early in deliberations, the jury had a question about the
crime charged: meeting a minor for lewd purposes in violation of
Penal Code section 288.4, subdivision (b). The jury asked the
court to define components of the crime (“unnatural” and
“abnormal” sexual interest in children). (See CALCRIM No. 1126
[defining this crime].) The court provided definitions.
After the court responded, the jury deliberated for an hour
and a half or so before convicting Rosales.
Rosales received two years of probation with 120 days in
jail. The court also ordered him to complete a sex offender
program and to pay various fines and fees.
II
Rosales claims we must reverse his conviction because the
trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the
affirmative defense of entrapment. His claim is mistaken.
Trial courts must instruct on entrapment if substantial
evidence supports the defense. (People v. Watson (2000) 22
Cal.4th 220, 222 (Watson).) Appellate courts review this issue
independently. (People v. Quarles (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 631,
634.)
The test for entrapment is objective and focuses on police
conduct. Entrapment is when police conduct “is likely to induce a
normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.” (Watson,

9
supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 223.) A “normally law-abiding person” is
one who would “ ‘normally resist the temptation to commit a
crime presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully.
Official conduct that does no more than offer that opportunity to
the suspect—for example, a decoy program—is therefore
permissible; but it is impermissible for the police or their agents to
pressure the suspect by overbearing conduct such as badgering,
cajoling, importuning, or other affirmative acts likely to induce a
normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.’ ” (Ibid.,
quoting People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 690 (Barraza),
italics added.) Thus, it is impermissible to make commission of
the crime unusually attractive to “normally law-abiding” people—
for example, by guaranteeing the act is not illegal or will go
undetected or by offering exorbitant consideration. It is also
impermissible for police to generate a motive for the crime other
than ordinary criminal intent, like friendship or sympathy. (See
Watson, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 223.; Barraza, supra, 23 Cal.3d at
p. 690.)
Substantial evidence of entrapment was missing here.
Rosales’s messages show he was eager for sex from the
outset. He wanted sex when he thought Sammy was 18. And he
continued wanting sex after he found out she was 16, which was
early on in their exchange.
Rosales’s interest seemed to grow at that point. His first
comment after learning Sammy was underage was, “Are you a
virgin.” He questioned if there was a set-up, but before getting
an answer, he said he was “willing to try it” with a younger girl.
Then he solidified a plan to meet.
There was no substantial evidence of the required police
pressure. Ravago offered the opportunity for sexual intercourse

10
with a minor, which a normally law-abiding adult would resist.
(See Watson, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 223; see also Fromuth,
supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 112 [no entrapment instruction
warranted where there was no evidence the officer “engaged in
any conduct that could have persuaded a normally law-abiding
man to agree to a sexual rendezvous with a 15-year-old girl”].)
Rosales learned Sammy was a minor five days before he
drove almost 50 miles to have sex with her. He continually
confronted Sammy’s minor status when she wrote about
“sneaking out” to avoid her mother, her relative inexperience and
timidity, and the like. Rosales admitted he knew their planned
encounter was unlawful.
“[A] person who arranges to have sex with a child when
given the opportunity is an opportunistic sexual predator, not a
normally law-abiding person.” (Fromuth, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at
p. 111.)
Rosales acknowledges that assuring a suspect he is not
being set up is not entrapment. (See Barraza, supra, 23 Cal.3d at
p. 690, fn. 4.)
Rosales argues that Sammy chastised him after the first
planned meeting fell through. This conduct was not pressure
that would induce a normally law-abiding adult to plan another
illicit meetup.
Rosales’s primary appellate effort centers on distinguishing
this case from Fromuth and People v. Federico (2011) 191
Cal.App.4th 1418. This effort missed the main point, which is
that police did not pressure Rosales into committing a crime.
Rosales maintains his expert’s testimony about the small
risk he posed to minors is an important distinguishing fact. No

11
matter what the expert said, however, there was no police
pressure on Rosales to become a criminal.
Alternatively, assuming the trial court erroneously refused
the requested instruction, this refusal was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. (See People v. Barrera (2026) 19 Cal.5th 919,
974 & 976 [court’s failure to give defense’s requested instruction
was harmless under this standard].)
Facing uncertainty on the appropriate standard, we apply
the more stringent standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 18, 24. (See People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 260–
261) [declining to reach the appropriate standard of review for
instructional errors related to affirmative defenses].)
No reasonable jury would have found that police entrapped
Rosales. He would have had the burden to establish the
entrapment defense. (See CALCRIM No. 3408.) This effort
would have failed, because overwhelming evidence showed
Rosales’s eagerness and persistence. Rosales’s only concern was
whether he might get caught.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.

WILEY, J.

We concur:

STRATTON, P. J. VIRAMONTES, J.

12