See Concurring Opinion Filed 3/17/22 P. v. Lundberg CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E074551 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF098081) JANET LOUISE LUNDBERG, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Godofredo Magno, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Sarah A. Stockwell, and Sarah A. Stockwell for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sedival, Collette Cavalier and Andrew S. Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 See Concurring Opinion Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(2) allows a person no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a conviction based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Defendant and appellant Janet Lundberg filed such a motion, contending that her 2014 diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome showed she was actually innocent of 14 sex crimes committed against two teenage boys in 2001. The trial court denied the motion, and we affirm, finding that the fact that Asperger’s Syndrome was diagnosable at the time she was charged and convicted, and that she pled guilty to the crimes, show that she has not brought forward newly discovered evidence of actual 1 innocence. I. BACKGROUND At a preliminary hearing held in December 2001, an officer testified that he had interviewed two boys about potential sexual abuse from Lundberg. One of the boys, J.M. (age 15), stated he had vaginal intercourse with Lundberg on three occasions, oral intercourse on four occasions, and that Lundberg had touched his penis with her hands on two occasions. The other boy, M.K. (age 13), stated he had oral intercourse with Lundberg on four occasions and vaginal intercourse on one occasion. The officer had interviewed Lundberg and testified that Lundberg told him that she had sexual intercourse with the boys on several occasions. According to a July 2001 police report, Lundberg stated she “had feeling[s]” for J.M. and that “she sort of liked [M.K.] but not as strong as [J.M.].” 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 See Concurring Opinion Lundberg was charged with four counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), four counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 and at least 10 years younger than the offender (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)), five counts of unlawful oral copulation with a minor (former § 288a, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of sodomy with a person under 16 (§ 286, subd. (b)(2)). According to an affidavit from Lundberg in 2001, J.M. and M.K. were the true aggressors and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals