Filed 2/16/22 P. v. Fuentes CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164266 v. JOSE LUIS HUAPE FUENTES, (Kern County Super. Ct. No. SF019123A) Defendant and Appellant. Appellant Jose Luis Huape Fuentes was tried before a jury and convicted of multiple sex offenses against his two biological daughters, who were minors at the time of the crimes.1 He contends: (1) his confession to deputies during an interview at his home should have been excluded at trial as having been made during a custodial interrogation without the advisements required under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda); (2) his confession was involuntary because it was motivated by one deputy’s promise of leniency; (3) his wife improperly opined at trial that one of her daughters was telling 1 This matter was transferred by the California Supreme Court on December 20, 2021, from the Fifth Appellate District (appeal No. F078986) to the First Appellate District (appeal No. A164266). 1 the truth about the charges; (4) his son should have been permitted to testify that in his opinion, appellant had not committed the sexual assaults; and (5) the abstract of judgment should be amended to reflect a stay of one count under Penal Code section 654.2 We order the abstract modified but otherwise affirm. I. BACKGROUND Appellant and his wife Maria were married in 1991 and have three children together: Jane Doe 2 (JD2), born in 1992, Jane Doe 1 (JD1), born in 2002, and a son E., who was born in 2007. Appellant also has two sons from a previous marriage. In 2015, JD2 moved out of the house to live with her future husband and eventually had a child. In 2017, Maria got into a car accident while JD2 was a passenger and appellant, blaming Maria for the accident, stopped giving her money for household expenses. This led to marital discord and in January 2018, Maria took JD1 and E. and moved out of appellant’s home and in with JD2 and her family. Shortly afterwards, JD1 broke down at school and disclosed to a counselor that appellant had been sexually abusing her for many years. The counselor, a mandated reporter, referred the case to Child Protective Services and contacted the school’s resource officer, Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy Diego Barajas. Deputy Barajas contacted an investigator with the Department, Senior Deputy Steve Vasquez, who interviewed JD1 and Maria. 2 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 JD2 was separately interviewed that same day and revealed that appellant had sexually abused her as well. Maria authorized the deputies to facilitate a pretext call …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals