Filed 12/27/22 P. v. Lopez CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163573 v. GABRIEL ELENA LOPEZ, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR169387) Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted defendant Gabriel Elena Lopez of molesting his girlfriend’s daughters, L. and J. He was sentenced to 104 years to life in prison. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred by denying him a continuance to investigate late-disclosed evidence that the girls’ parents and J. applied for U visas, which convey temporary legal residency on crime victims and their relatives. He also claims the court erred by excluding the U-visa evidence under Evidence Code section 352. Finally, he claims he must be resentenced because the court relied on his decision to go to trial to select the term imposed. We reject his claims, order a correction to the abstract of judgment, and affirm. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Background L. and J.’s mother (mother) was born in Mexico and later moved to Oregon, where L. was born in September 1997. Mother and L. eventually returned to Mexico, where J. was born in September 2003. Mother subsequently split up with the girls’ father, who had remained in the United States. Around 2007, mother began dating Lopez. Lopez, who was born in 1984, lived in Napa but was from the same town as mother and returned to Mexico for a few months each year. In May 2010, mother, L., and J. moved to Napa to live with Lopez. Two months later, mother and Lopez’s son was born. Initially, the family lived with Lopez’s brothers, but they later moved to an apartment on Central Street in Napa. In 2012, the family moved to a two- bedroom apartment on Riverside Drive. That September, mother and Lopez’s daughter was born. Lopez, mother, and the two youngest children slept in one bedroom, and L. and J. slept in the other. Lopez worked outside the home, and mother stayed home to care for the children. She testified that she “never” left L. and J. home alone with Lopez during this period. But in the summer of 2013, mother began working the night shift at McDonald’s. While she was at work, from 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 or 2:00 a.m., Lopez stayed with the children. L. and J. took care of the younger children, “because he didn’t want to be bothered most of the time.” After the family stopped living with Lopez’s brothers, Lopez became hostile toward mother, L., and J. He hit mother in front of L. and J. and threatened to take them away if she left him. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals