Filed 8/31/20 P. v. Bran CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H046835 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. B1582411 ) v. GUILLERMO BRAN, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Guillermo Bran appeals from the superior court’s denial of his Penal 1 Code section 1473.7 motion. He contends that the court was required to hold a hearing on his motion and could not deny it without a hearing unless he waived his right to a hearing. The Attorney General claims that defendant “was not entitled to a hearing on his motion because he was not eligible to bring the motion.” He asserts that defendant was ineligible because he remained on parole and therefore was still in “criminal custody” both when he filed and when he renewed his section 1473.7 motion. Defendant replies that considering those on parole to be ineligible to bring a motion under section 1473.7 violates his right to equal protection. We reject defendant’s claims. He was statutorily ineligible to bring a section 1473.7 motion under the statute because he was on parole, and his equal protection rights were not violated because he was not similarly situated to those who are 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. eligible to bring such a motion since, unlike them, he was entitled to seek habeas relief. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s order denying his section 1473.7 motion. I. BACKGROUND Defendant came to the United States from El Salvador in 2005. He lived for a time in a storage shed behind the Sunnyvale home where Jose G. lived with his family, which included Jose’s minor son K. Defendant’s wife joined him in 2008. Jose’s wife contacted the police in January 2013 and reported that fifteen-year-old K. had told her that he had been sexually assaulted five years earlier. She told the police that she had learned of the sexual assault nine days earlier, shortly after she and Jose discovered that K. had a boyfriend. K. then told his mother that he was bisexual and that he had been sexually assaulted by his father’s friends, defendant and Wilmer Vasquez, beginning when he was 10 years old. K. said that these forcible assaults took place in the storage shed behind the Sunnyvale home. The police interviewed K. shortly after his mother’s report. He told them that defendant had begun sexually abusing him when he was 10 years old. The abuse began with touchings and progressed to forced oral copulation and forcible sodomy. Defendant did not use a condom and threatened to kill K. and his family if he told anyone. The abuse occurred “many times” and ceased ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals