Filed 6/3/21 P. v. Gomez CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E071806 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1801173) JUAN BERNARDO GOMEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge. Affirmed. Gene D. Vorobyov, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta and Xavier Becerra, Attorney Generals, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 A jury found defendant and appellant Juan Bernardo Gomez guilty of 19 counts of rape. (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2).)1 The jury found true the allegation that the rapes were committed against more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4).) As to Counts 1 through 8, the jury found true the allegations that the rapes were committed against a minor who was 14 years of age or older. (§ 264, subd. (c)(2).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for eight consecutive indeterminate terms of 25 years to life (Counts 1 through 8) and 11 consecutive indeterminate terms of 15 years to life (Counts 10 through 20), which amounts to a sentence of 365 years to life. Defendant raises five issues on appeal. First, defendant contends substantial evidence does not support the finding of duress for Counts 10 through 20. Second, defendant asserts the trial court erred by giving the generic testimony unanimity instruction (CALCRIM No. 3501) for Counts 10 through 20. Third, defendant asserts the trial court erred by refusing his pinpoint instruction concerning duress. Fourth, defendant contends the trial court erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on two allegedly lesser included offenses. Fifth, defendant asks this court to review sealed school records to determine if they contain any discoverable information. We affirm the judgment. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. COUNTS 10 THROUGH 20: SISTER M.R. (Sister) and defendant are half-siblings; they share the same mother. Defendant is approximately 10 years older than Sister. Sister lived on a ranch in Mexico. In November 2003, a few days before Sister’s 20th birthday, she came to live in the United States for the first time. Sister moved into defendant’s two-bedroom apartment. Other people who lived in the apartment were defendant, defendant’s wife, defendant’s children, and two of Sister’s older brothers (Javier and Huber). A younger brother, Manuel, came to live in the apartment after Sister arrived. When Sister arrived in America, all of Sister’s family in America lived with defendant. Sister relied more …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals