Filed 5/26/21 P. v. Sanchez-Cortes CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, G058917 v. (Super. Ct. No. 18HF0393) JOEL ISMAEL SANCHEZ-CORTES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed. The Appellate Law Firm, Corey Evan Parker and Berangere Allen-Blaine for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted appellant Joel Ismael Sanchez-Cortes of forcible sexual penetration (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)); sexual battery by restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)); false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, §§ 236 and 237, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240), as a lesser included offense of assault to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of seven years and eight months, comprising six years for the sexual penetration, one year consecutive for the sexual battery, and a consecutive eight months for the false imprisonment; the sentence on the misdemeanor assault conviction was suspended. Appellant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in making three evidentiary rulings during trial: (1) Excluding evidence the victim made a prior false allegation of sexual misconduct; (2) Sustaining a hearsay objection to his attempt to introduce through a police detective witness a statement appellant’s sister-in-law said was made by appellant’s sister; and (3) Permitting the prosecutor to briefly cross-examine appellant’s sister-in-law about her financial interest in cosigning for a bond in support of appellant’s release on his then-pending immigration asylum petition. We reject all three contentions and affirm. 1 FACTS 2 The dramatis personae in this matter are all close family members. Appellant and Jane Doe are siblings who had recently reconnected after 13 years. On the evening of January 13, 2018, appellant and a third sibling, Jose, arrived at Jane Doe’s apartment uninvited. She let them in, they got food, and sat around for a while drinking. 1 Appellant’s briefs are peppered with citations to facts found in the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing in this matter. The evidence at that hearing consisted of the Proposition 115 hearsay testimony of two police officers, none of which was admitted into evidence at trial. (See Pen. Code, § 872, subd. (b).) As such, these “facts” are irrelevant, and we have not considered them. 2 For purposes of clarity, and to protect their privacy, we refer to the family members other than appellant and Jane Doe by their first names …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals