1

Filed 10/22/21 P. v. Garcia CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAUL DEJESUS GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A161764

(Napa County

Super. Ct. No. 20CR000633)

Defendant Raul DeJesus Garcia appeals the judgment imposed 

following his plea of no contest to four felonies—a forcible lewd act (Pen.

Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)),

1 forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), forcible sodomy 

(§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(B)), and continuous sexual abuse (§ 288.5, subd. (a)), each 

involving a child under age 14. He also admitted an allegation that the crimes

involved substantial sexual conduct with a child under age 14 (§ 1203.066, 

subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to the agreed term of 42 years in prison.

Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has submitted a brief pursuant 

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court 

independently review the record, and has advised defendant of his right to 

submit a supplemental brief, which defendant has not done. This court’s 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2

review of the record has disclosed no issues that warrant further briefing, but 

one minor error in the abstract of judgment that requires correction..

According to the probation office’s report, Napa Sheriff’s Department 

officers responded to a report from a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker 

regarding several children being removed from the custody of defendant and

his wife. One of the children, an eight-year-old girl, told the CPS worker that 

defendant had sexually molested both her and her 11-year-old sister (the 

minor), who were defendant’s stepdaughters. Sheriff’s deputies and CPS 

workers interviewed the minor, her sister, and their 10-year-old brother. The 

minor alleged that defendant had raped and sodomized her repeatedly over a

three-year period. Deputies arrested defendant, who denied any wrongdoing. 

The arrest report indicates that the minor’s siblings corroborated her 

account.

The district attorney’s office filed a complaint charging defendant with 

20 felony counts involving sexual abuse of a child,

2 and alleging that he used 

force and engaged in substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subds. (a)(1) & 

(a)(8)). Defendant, represented by hired counsel, pled not guilty and denied 

the special allegations.

Defendant and the prosecution reached a plea agreement, pursuant to 

which the district attorney filed an amended complaint that retained the

existing counts and allegations and added three felony counts: forcible rape of 

2 The complaint alleged 12 counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with 

a child under age 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (a)), with one count for each of the 

12 months between March 2018 and February 2019; four counts of 

aggravated sexual assault of a child under age 14, with two counts alleging 

sodomy (§ 269, subd. (a)(3)), and two alleging rape (§ 269, subd. (a)(1)), and 

each involving a two-month period between March and June 2019; and four 

counts of forcibly performing a lewd act on a child under age 14 (§ 288, 

subd. (b)(1)), with one count for each month between March and June 2019.
3

a child under age 14 (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), forcible sodomization of a child 

under age 14 (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(B)), and continuous sexual abuse over a 

six-month period of a child under age 14 (§ 288.5, subd. (a)).

Pursuant to the agreement, defendant pled no contest to the three new 

counts and to count 17, forcible performance of a lewd act on a child under 

age 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), and he admitted that the crimes involved 

substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). The agreement called 

for a prison term of 42 years and waiver of defendant’s appellate rights. 

The court questioned defendant and found that he had knowingly, 

voluntarily, and intelligently waived the constitutional rights set forth on the

plea form. After the parties stipulated that the plea had a factual basis, the 

court granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts, subject to 

a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754; referred the 

matter to the probation office; and set a sentencing hearing.3

The probation report stated that defendant indicated that he was from 

Mexico, was not a United States citizen, and worked various jobs “under the 

table” for cash. 

At the sentencing hearing, the court heard a victim impact statement 

by the minor’s mother, ordered a written statement by the victim entered into 

the record by stipulation, and heard a brief statement by defendant. The 

court stated that it would “follow the agreement of the parties” and imposed a 

total prison term of 42 years, while noting that defendant had credits of 295 

days.

4 Based on the probation report’s recommendations, the court imposed a 

3 The plea agreement also provided for defendant to admit that his 

conduct violated his probation on three prior misdemeanor convictions, which 

he did. His notice of appeal does not encompass the parole-violation matters.

4 The sentence comprised consecutive middle terms on each of the four 

counts of conviction: eight years on count 17, forcible performance of a lewd act 
4

$10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a suspended parole-revocation 

fine in the same amount (§ 1202.45), an $1,800 sex-offenses fine (§ 290.3, 

subd. (a)), a $160 court-security fee (§ 1465.8) and a $120 criminal-conviction 

assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) and it ordered defendant to pay victim 

restitution in a sum to be determined (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), to register as a sex 

offender (§ 290), and to undergo an AIDS test (§ 1202.1, subd. (a)).

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal stating that his appeal is 

based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not 

affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) His appointed counsel 

has filed a brief and a declaration indicating his determination that no viable 

issues exist to raise on appeal. This court’s review of the record has not 

disclosed any such issues.

5

We note, however, that the abstract of judgment states, in the “Other 

orders” section, “Pay 1,800.00 Penal Code section 1202.1(a).” Section 1202.1, 

on a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)); 11 years on count 21, forcible 

rape of a child under age 14 (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), 11 years on count 22, 

forcible sodomization of a child under age 14 (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(B)), and 12 

years on count 23, continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 14 (§ 288.5, 

subd. (a)).

5 While the amount of fines and fees that were imposed, and defense 

counsel’s failure to object to them, might be thought to raise constitutional 

questions, we are satisfied that no further briefing is warranted in light of 

the severity of defendant’s offenses and the governing legal standard. (See 

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688 [appellant claiming 

ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel’s deficient 

performance resulted in prejudice]; People v. Cowan (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 

32, 47–48 [constitutional challenge to amount of fines and assessments 

imposed as result of criminal conviction must be analyzed under excessive 

fines clause in light of “four considerations bearing on proportionality: ‘(1) the 

defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the 

penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s 

ability to pay’ ”], review granted, June 17, 2020, S261952.)
5

subdivision (a) mandates AIDS testing for all persons convicted of certain 

sexual offenses; it is section 290.3, subdivision (a), that requires the imposition 

of a fine on persons convicted of specified sexual offenses. 

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is ordered to correct the 

abstract of judgment to identify the $1,800 fine as imposed pursuant to Penal 

Code section 290.3, subdivision (a). 

POLLAK, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

ROSS, J.*

* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.