FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County,
No. 11F05478, Timothy M. Frawley, Judge.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant
Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Jennevee H. de
Guzman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
by Hoch, J., with Raye, P. J., and Murray, J., concurring.
Cal.Rptr.3d 447] HOCH, J.
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)), 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.
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.
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
we affirm defendant's convictions but remand for
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 ...