(Super. Ct. No. 10F07563)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Salvador Aguilar Santoyo promised to take 13-year-old T. to a school open house so she could earn extra credit, but then he detoured to an apartment where he molested her. A jury found him guilty of two lewd acts on a child (thereby acquitting or failing to reach a verdict on the more serious charges of rape, forcible sodomy, and forcible lewd acts), and the court sentenced him to 17 years in prison.
On appeal, defendant raises four issues relating to the evidence and sentencing. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant, who was in his 20's, was a family friend of T. One evening when T.'s mother could not take T. to school for an extra credit project, defendant said he would. Instead of taking T. to her school, he took her to his girlfriend's apartment, which was vacant. He showed her a gun. They then went in a bedroom, where defendant asked T., "'What would you do if I take you down?'" T. interpreted this to mean "'What would you do if I had sex with you?'"
Defendant then kissed T., pulled her pants down, and pushed her on the bed, where he stuck his penis through one of the leg openings of her underwear. He then stuck his penis in her vagina. T. pulled up her pants. Right after that, defendant used his hand to touch her vagina on the outside of her clothing. Defendant went to the bathroom, and T. went outside. When defendant joined her, T. told him to take her home, and he did.
Defendant testified at trial that he did not molest T.
The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Refusing To Admit Certain Defense Evidence, And Trial Counsel Was Not Ineffective
Defendant contends the court abused its discretion when it refused to admit under Evidence Code section 356 portions of an interview he had with police. There was no error, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to turn this evidentiary issue into an alleged constitutional issue, as defendant further claims.