Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Ranlet

California Court of Appeals, Third District

July 11, 2016

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ADAM BILL RANLET, Defendant and Appellant

         [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]

          APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 11F05478, Timothy M. Frawley, Judge.

          Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Page 364

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 365

         COUNSEL

         Paul V. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Jennevee H. de Guzman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Opinion by Hoch, J., with Raye, P. J., and Murray, J., concurring.

          OPINION

Page 366

          [204 Cal.Rptr.3d 447] HOCH, J.

          A jury convicted defendant Adam Bill Ranlet of two counts of lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years by use of force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)),[1] four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a)), and one count of attempted lewd and lascivious conduct on a child under the age of 14 years (§ § 664, 288, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegation the offenses were committed against two or more victims under the age of 14 years. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve a term of 93 years to life in prison.

         On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his participation in a private online discussion group called " ptcruzers" in which participants made thinly veiled references to [204 Cal.Rptr.3d 448] sexual molestations of minors, (2) evidence defendant showed the victim a videotape depicting the rape of a 10- to 12-year-old girl should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial, (3) the jury was misinstructed that his participation in the " ptcruzer" online chat group was an uncharged crime, (4) we must review the sealed documents relating to Child Protective Services (CPS) records for the victim, and (5) we must strike one of his 15-year-to-life terms imposed for his two convictions of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years by use of force against the same victim.

         We conclude the online discussion group evidence was admissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to show defendant's intent to sexually molest the two victims in this case. Defendant's argument regarding admission of the videotape has not been preserved for review because his trial attorney did not secure a ruling on his evidentiary objection. As to the instruction regarding the online discussion group, we conclude the trial court erred in stating to the jury that defendant's participation was an uncharged crime. However, the error was harmless. We have reviewed the sealed record and determined the trial court did not err in ordering part of the CPS record to be disclosed to the parties. Finally, we strike one of the prison terms imposed for defendant's two convictions of section 288, subdivision (b)(1), against the same victim on the same occasion.

         Accordingly, we affirm defendant's convictions but remand for resentencing.

Page 367

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Victim C. Doe

         C. was born in 1996 and was 17 at the time of trial. Although defendant is her father, C. lived with her mother before her mother passed away in August 2012. When she was eight years old in 2004, C. visited defendant approximately two or three times a week--sometimes spending the night. In 2004, C.'s mother was picking up her daughter when she noticed what appeared to her to be thumbnail photos of naked young children on defendant's computer. In 2004, defendant showed C. a pornographic video involving persons whom defendant " called his friend and his [friend's] daughter." C. testified the video showed " [h]is daughter was tied to the bed and he was, in my mind, now raping her." C. was disturbed by the video. Defendant also showed her pornography involving adults.

         Sometime before November 2004, defendant called C. to come into his bedroom. Defendant was " sitting on the bed with chocolate syrup on his penis" and told her: " Lick this. Lick the chocolate syrup. It's a Sunda[e]." C. refused and defendant made her get him a towel. He told her she could go back to what she had been doing.

         When C. was eight years old, defendant woke her up from a nap by putting a vibrator against her vagina. Although she had gone to sleep wearing clothes, she was naked when she awoke. Defendant made her read the package for the vibrator before stating, " [i]t was used for girls to put on themselves or to put on each other." C. told defendant to stop and he did.

         On another occasion, defendant called C. into the bedroom and told her to sit next to him on the bed. He told her to touch his erect penis, but she refused. Defendant grabbed her wrist and pulled it toward his penis, which she touched with one finger. As she tried to pull away, he opened her hand and put it on his penis. C. told him to let her go, but he held her hand there while using his other hand to [204 Cal.Rptr.3d 449] move his penis back and forth for a minute. C. again told him to let her go, but he did not " until he thought it was the right time." C. asked him why he did that, and defendant responded: " I might do it again." Defendant pulled down her shorts and underwear. He then touched her vaginal area on the outside. C. was afraid of defendant and felt he would come after her if she tried to get away.

         On a separate occasion, defendant told her " he wanted to do stuff." Defendant made her lie down and he took off C.'s pants and underwear. He tried to put his fingers into her vagina, but she told him to stop because it hurt. He then tried to insert his penis into her vagina, and again she told him

Page 368

to stop due to pain. Defendant stopped but told her she " should practice at home." C. was scared and did not tell her mother about the incident for a long time.

         On another occasion, defendant called C. over to his computer and told her to read some e-mails he was sending back and forth with a woman. In the e-mails, defendant " was saying how he would do things to her daughter and she said along the lines of that's okay, she's been through that." C. remembered one of the e-mails involved " pushing [the daughter] onto the bed and holding her down."

         In November 2004, defendant moved to an apartment complex on Moraine Circle. At the apartment, defendant would have C. bring his cat to him and make her watch as the cat licked semen from his penis. C. felt very uncomfortable and scared each time this occurred.

         C.'s mother reported the molestations to the police on December 26, 2004. C. had delayed in telling her mother about the molestations because on Father's Day in 2004, defendant had threatened to kill ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.