Filed 9/30/26 P. v. Villa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B342743
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA082633-01)
v.
PASCUAL VILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Emily Cole, Judge. Affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Nicholas Seymour, 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, Noah P. Hill and Eric J. Kohm, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________________
Defendant Pascual Villa appeals from his conviction and
sentence after a jury convicted him of sexually abusing four
minor children. First, Villa contends and the People agree his
indeterminate sentence for count 7 was an ex post facto sentence.
Second, Villa asks us to review the trial court’s in camera rulings
on his motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d
531 (Pitchess).
We remand for resentencing because of the sentencing
error on count 7, and we find no error on the trial court’s Pitchess
rulings. In addition, we find this matter appropriate for
disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance with the
California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See
People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of
memorandum opinions].)
1. Factual background
The People charged Villa with committing lewd acts upon a
child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a);1 counts 1, 2,
3, 5, 6, & 8), and continuous sexual abuse (§ 288.5, subd. (a);
counts 4 & 7). The People accused Villa of sexually abusing four
victims including Noemy, the victim in counts 7 and 8. Relevant
to this appeal for count 7, the People alleged that Villa sexually
abused Noemy from October 25, 1997 to October 24, 2001.
The trial record reflects that Villa is Noemy’s uncle. Her
family moved in with Villa in Northridge when she was eight
years old, and stayed there for four years, moving out when
Noemy was a sixth grader. Initially after she moved in, Villa
bought Noemy coloring books and snacks, and they had a close
relationship. Thereafter when she was eight years old, Villa
invited Noemy to color a book in his room and placed his fingers
1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
2
in her vagina after pulling down her clothes. He touched her five
times when she was between the ages of 8 and 11. During those
instances, he also placed his penis in Noemy’s mouth twice.
Thereafter, Noemy’s family moved to Palmdale when she was in
sixth grade, and she lived apart from Villa. However, Villa then
moved into the Palmdale home when Noemy was 12 years old,
and he again placed his fingers inside her vagina once when he
went into her bedroom. After Villa abused her in Palmdale,
Noemy had her mother wake her up when her mother would
leave for work, and Noemy would lock the bedroom door to
prevent Villa from further abusing her. Villa attempted to go
back into Noemy’s locked bedroom three times including by
attempting to access windows and asking to be let in, but Noemy
kept him locked out. Consequently, Villa no longer abused
Noemy. Noemy was born in 1989, and Villa abused Noemy from
about 1997 to 2001.
The jury found Villa guilty of all counts. At sentencing on
December 12, 2024, the trial court used count 1, a violation of
section 288, subdivision (a), as the base count. When sentencing
Villa on count 7 under section 288.5, the court ruled that “the
term converts to an indeterminate sentence pursuant to the
allegation found true in … section 667.6(b) and (e). The term is
15 years to life.” The trial court ran count 7 consecutively to
counts 1 and 4 under section 667.6, subdivision (d)(1) and (3).
2. Retroactive application of One Strike law
In 1994, the Legislature enacted the “One Strike” law
(§ 667.61) requiring indeterminate life sentences for certain sex
offenses committed under particular circumstances. (People v.
Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1173–1174.) Prior to 2006,
section 288.5 did not qualify as a One Strike offense. (Valenti, at
p. 1174.) Consequently in 2006, the Legislature amended section
3
667.61 to encompass continuous sexual abuse under section
288.5, subdivision (a), as a One Strike offense. (See Sen. Bill
No. 1128 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) § 33; Valenti, at pp. 1173–1174.)
At sentencing, the trial court sentenced Villa under the One
Strike law for his count 7 conviction.
Here, the trial court applied the One Strike law to
appellant’s sentence for the continuous sexual abuse of Noemy.
However, the 2006 amendment to the One Strike law was
inapplicable to count 7’s continuous sexual abuse conviction
because the crime took place from 1997 to 2001. Consequently,
the trial court improperly applied the One Strike law
retroactively to count 7. (Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S.
37, 42–43.) As a result, we vacate Villa’s sentence and remand
for a full resentencing hearing at which defendant has a right to
be present with counsel.
3. Pitchess motion
On December 21, 2023, Villa filed a Pitchess motion
regarding Officer Delia Reyes seeking to compel disclosure of
complaints relating to dishonesty among other misconduct. The
trial court granted the Pitchess motion, but found no responsive
documents during the January 25, 2024 hearing. On March 2,
2026, after this appeal was briefed, we remanded the matter to
the trial court to clarify the documents reviewed in the Pitchess
hearing. On the remanded Pitchess hearing, the trial court
provided this court with a further record of the documents
reviewed.
Villa asked us to independently review the sealed Pitchess
hearing involving Officer Reyes. We reviewed the sealed record
of the proceedings and conclude the trial court properly exercised
its discretion in finding no discoverable materials. (People v.
Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1232.)
4
DISPOSITION
We affirm the findings on the Pitchess hearing. We reverse
the sentence imposed on count 7 and remand for a full
resentencing hearing, at which the trial court shall not apply the
One Strike law to Count 7. Judgment is affirmed in all other
respects.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
WILEY, J.
5