P. v. Medel
Defendant Pedro Lopez Medel appeals from judgment entered following jury convictions for forcible sodomy of a child under 14 years old and more than 10 years younger than the defendant (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(3)[2]; count 1); two counts of forcible oral copulation of the vagina and anus of a child under 14 years old and more than seven years younger than the defendant (§ 269, subd. (a)(4); counts 2 and 3); and commission of a lewd act upon a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a); count 4). The jury further found true, as to each count, the multiple victims allegation (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5)). Counts 1, 2, and 3 were committed against Jane Doe 1 and count 4 was committed against Jane Doe 2. The trial court sentenced defendant to 60 years to life in prison.
Defendant contends his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the trial court allowing a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) laboratory supervisor to testify as to the results of DNA testing performed by another person. Defendant also argues that the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for counts 2 and 3 since the offenses were not committed on separate occasions. In addition, defendant asserts that the court miscalculated his actual credits for time served and failed to award conduct credits under section 2933.1. Defendant's abstract of judgment also misstates his sentence.
Court conclude there was no prejudicial error as to the admission of DNA evidence but agree there was sentencing error, as defendant asserts, requiring reversal of defendant's sentences on counts 2 and 3, resentencing on those counts, recalculation of defendant's presentence credits, and correction of the abstract of judgment.
Comments on P. v. Medel