1

Filed 8/10/16 P. v. Perez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

v.

DANIEL HENRY PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

E063891

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1301369)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge. 

Affirmed as modified.

Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Quisteen S. Shum and 

Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant Daniel Henry Perez sexually assaulted two young female members of 

his household — Jane Doe No. 11(Doe 1) when she was between 15 and 18, and Jane 

Doe No. 2 (Doe 2) when she was between 9 and 10. A jury found him guilty of:

Count 1: Forcible oral copulation committed against Doe 1. (Pen. Code, § 288a, 

subd. (c)(2)(A).)

Count 2: Felony false imprisonment committed against Doe 1 (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 

237, subd. (a)), as a lesser included offense of kidnapping for the purpose of oral 

copulation (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (a)(1)).

Count 3: Aggravated rape of a child committed against Doe 2. (Pen. Code, § 269, 

subd. (a)(1).)

Count 4: A forcible lewd act on a child committed against Doe 2. (Pen. Code, 

§ 288, subd. (b)(1).)

The jury also found a multiple victim special circumstance under the One Strike 

Law. (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (e)(4).) 

Defendant was sentenced to a total of 32 years to life in prison, along with the 

usual fines, fees, and miscellaneous sentencing orders. 

Defendant now contends:

 

1 The trial court ordered that all of the alleged victims be referred to by 

fictitious names. (Pen. Code, § 293.5.) 
3

1. The trial court erred by excluding evidence that Doe 2 had a character trait of 

lying. To the extent that defendant’s trial counsel forfeited this contention, defendant 

contends that he received ineffective assistance.

2. There was insufficient evidence of violence, menace, or fraud to support 

defendant’s conviction for felony false imprisonment.

3. The trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by imposing separate and 

consecutive sentences for forcible oral copulation and forcible false imprisonment.

The People concede the violation of Penal Code section 654. Otherwise, we find 

no error. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment so as to correct the violation and 

affirm as modified.

I

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

A. Sexual Assault on Doe 1.

Carmen and Carlos Perez had a house in Riverside. They had five biological 

children. In addition, they adopted defendant when he was a child. They also took in and 

raised Doe 1 under an informal foster care arrangement. Defendant was 19 years older 

than Doe 1.

 

2 We omit the evidence relating to sexual offenses allegedly committed 

against John Doe, who was Doe 2’s brother, because the jury either hung or acquitted 

defendant on these counts.
4

Sometime between 2000 and 2003, when Doe 1 was between 15 and 18 years old, 

defendant was “play wrestl[ing]” with her in a grassy area behind the house. He was 

“very drunk.” He got “a little bit too rough,” so she went inside. 

“[M]aybe an hour” later, defendant picked her up, put her on his shoulders, and 

carried her down a hallway and into her bedroom — a distance of approximately 30 feet. 

He threw her onto the bed. At first, she thought he was “still messing around.” 

However, when he straddled her chest and pinned her arms down by kneeling on them, 

she became afraid. She screamed and fought. 

He tried to put his penis in her mouth. She kept her mouth closed, so it touched 

her lips and “maybe went into [her] teeth, but not all the way in.” When defendant 

realized that his penis was not all the way in, he said, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” He got off 

her and left the bedroom. Doe 1 “went into the bathroom and . . . showered and cried.” 

After that, Doe 1 avoided defendant. She did not report the incident to the police 

at the time because the Perezes were good foster parents and she was afraid of being 

taken away from them. She reported it only after she heard that Doe 2 was going to go to 

the police. 

B. Sexual Assault on Doe 2.

The Perezes had numerous grandchildren, including Doe 2. Doe 2 lived with them 

from time to time. Defendant was 25 years older than Doe 2.

When Doe 2 was in fourth grade — i.e., in 2000 or 2001, when she was 9 or 10 

years old — she and defendant were both in the living room. She was wearing a two-
5

piece bathing suit because she had been swimming in the pool. She was counting some 

money she had saved. She asked defendant if he had any change. 

Defendant took a couple of steps, which brought him very close to her; he looked 

at her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. She ran into the nearest bedroom. She 

tried to push the door closed, but he pushed it open. He pushed her onto the bed, on her 

back, then “he just pushed his whole body against [her].” She could feel his penis go into 

her vagina. She was not sure how he got her bathing suit out of the way. She started 

crying and told him that he was hurting her. His penis went in and out four or five times. 

Doe 2 heard a noise, and defendant got off her. She ran into a bathroom. He came 

in, closed the door, and “took his pants off completely.” He said, “If you look at it, I[’]ll 

give you 25 cents. If you touch it, I’ll give you 50 cents. If you put it in your mouth, I’ll 

give you a dollar.” When she heard her grandfather coming into the house, defendant 

left. The next day, she found “a bunch of change” on her bed. 

Doe 2 did not immediately disclose the incident. At some point, however, she told 

Carmen that defendant had raped her.3 Carmen told her, “[I]t did not happen . . . that 

stuff doesn’t happen in our family.” In 2008, when she was 16, she told her father’s 

girlfriend, who told her father, who took her to the police. 

 

3 Carmen denied this. 
6

C. Defense Evidence.

Six family members testified that they never saw defendant behave in a sexually 

inappropriate manner. They also testified that Doe 1 and Doe 2 never appeared to be 

uncomfortable around him. 

II

EXCLUSION OF OPINION TESTIMONY

THAT DOE 2 HAD A CHARACTER TRAIT OF LYING

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to let him introduce 

evidence that Doe 2 had a character trait of lying. To the extent that his trial counsel 

forfeited this contention, he contends that he received ineffective assistance. 

A. Additional Factual and Procedural Background.

The People brought a motion in limine to “[e]xclude witnesses from improper 

character evidence attacking the victim’s character for truthfulness. For example[,] the 

People seek to exclude statements made by defense witnesses that claim ‘when [Doe 2] 

was younger she would lie about things.’” 

Defense counsel made an offer of proof that one Vanessa Perez would testify that, 

when Doe 2 was an adolescent, she had falsely accused her own father of physical abuse. 

The trial court excluded this evidence under Evidence Code section 352, noting that it 

would “necessitate essentially a trial within a trial” as to whether Doe 2’s father did 

actually physically abuse her. 

Defense counsel then asked whether the trial court was excluding opinion 

testimony by Vanessa Perez “as to the veracity of [Doe 2].” The trial court replied, 
7

“Under what Evidence Code section do you want that to come in?” Defense counsel 

said, “Just credibility, your Honor.” 

The trial court also excluded this evidence; it explained: “I still don’t know under 

what Evidence Code it would come in. If you can point me to an Evidence Code number 

that says you can do what you’re asking me to do, I mean, I recognize that the credibility 

of a witness is always at issue. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . And the Evidence Code sets forth ways 

under which you impeach a witness. Prior inconsistent statements is one. Crimes of 

moral turpitude is another. Character trait for lying is what I’m — I don’t see that 

anywhere in the Evidence Code . . . . If you can show me where the Evidence Code says 

that comes in, I’d be happy to look at it.” 

The trial court then observed again that the particular incident of lying was remote 

and would require a trial within a trial. It said that it was willing to “revisit this issue” if 

defense counsel made an additional offer of proof. 

B. Discussion.

To answer the trial court’s inquiry: The Evidence Code does allow a witness to be 

impeached by evidence of a character trait for lying. “Evidence Code section 780 

provides that a jury may ‘consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter 

that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony

. . . .’ It outlines a number of ways in which a witness may be impeached, including 

‘[h]is character for honesty or veracity or their opposites.’ (Evid. Code, § 780, subd. 

(e).)” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 750.)
8

Admittedly, Evidence Code section 1101 provides that “evidence of a person’s 

character or a trait of his or her character . . . is inadmissible when offered to prove his or 

her conduct on a specified occasion. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) However, it goes 

on to provide that “[n]othing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence offered 

to support or attack the credibility of a witness.” (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (c).) In any 

event, there are exceptions to the rule of Evidence Code section 1101, specifically 

including Evidence Code section 1103 (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a)), which allows a 

criminal defendant to use evidence of the character or a trait of character of an alleged 

victim to prove conduct by the alleged victim in conformity with the character or trait of 

character. (Evid. Code, § 1103, subd. (a)(1).)

The admissibility of character to impeach, however, was not the trial court’s only 

concern. It was also concerned that the only proffered instance in which Doe 2 had 

supposedly lied was both remote and subject to dispute. It indicated that it would 

reconsider if defense counsel made an additional offer of proof. These concerns relate to 

whether there was an adequate foundation for Vanessa Perez’s opinion.

“‘A witness who is not testifying as an expert may testify in the form of an opinion 

only if the opinion is based on his own perception.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Thompson

(2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 130.) It did not appear that Vanessa Perez had any basis for her 

opinion other than the fact that Doe 2 had accused her own father of physical abuse. 

After all, if she did have any additional basis, defense counsel would have been offering 
9

that as another specific instance of Doe 2’s conduct.4 However, it would not be 

reasonable to leap, from the fact that a person lied once, in adolescence, to the conclusion 

that that person would lie as an adult, under oath. In addition, it did not appear that 

Vanessa Perez had personal knowledge that Doe 2’s accusations against her father were 

false; defense counsel indicated that this was something she “learned.” Thus, her opinion 

was not rationally based on her own perceptions.

Defendant describes the proffered evidence as “reputation” rather than opinion 

testimony. (See Evid. Code, § 1100.) That is incorrect. “Reputation is not what a 

character witness may know about [an individual]. Reputation is the estimation in which 

an individual is held; in other words, the character imputed to an individual rather than 

what is actually known of him either by the witness or others.” (People v. McDaniel

(1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 672, 676.) Reputation evidence is, in essence, hearsay, although it 

is admissible under a specific hearsay exception. (Evid. Code, § 1324.) Here, defense 

counsel did not propose to ask Vanessa Perez what she had heard about Doe 2 from 

others; rather, she proposed to ask for Vanessa Perez’s own opinion. Indeed, defense 

counsel frankly characterized it as “Vanessa’s opinion.” 

 

4 At one point, defense counsel referred to “incidents” — plural — in which 

Doe 2 “would lie about certain things.” This was not sufficiently specific to constitute an 

offer of proof that there was actually more than one such incident. (See People v. 

Schmies (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 38, 53 [“an offer of proof must be specific”].)
10

Basically, defense counsel was trying to get around the trial court’s ruling 

excluding evidence that Doe 2 had supposedly lied by recharacterizing it as evidence that 

Doe 2 was a liar. The trial court quite correctly saw no difference.

We therefore conclude that the trial court was required to exclude the proffered 

evidence as an improper lay opinion. It follows that, even assuming defense counsel’s 

failure to cite Evidence Code section 780 fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness, defendant was not prejudiced, because the trial court would have been 

required to exclude the evidence anyway.

III

THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE, MENACE,

OR FRAUD FOR PURPOSES OF FELONY FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of violence, menace, or 

fraud to support his conviction for felony false imprisonment of Doe 1. 

“‘“When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to 

determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence that is reasonable, 

credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citation.] We determine “whether, after 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

[Citation.] In so doing, a reviewing court “presumes in support of the judgment the 
11

existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.”’ 

[Citation.]” (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1212-1213.)

False imprisonment is “the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” 

(Pen. Code, § 236.) The elements of false imprisonment are that the defendant: 

(1) intentionally and unlawfully restrained, detained, or confined another person and 

(2) compelled the other person to stay or go somewhere against the other person’s will. 

(CALCRIM No. 1240 [felony false imprisonment], No. 1242 [misdemeanor false 

imprisonment]; see also People v. Fernandez (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 710, 716 [former 

CALJIC false imprisonment instruction “sets forth a correct statement of the law.”].) If 

false imprisonment is “effected by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit,” it is a felony; 

otherwise, it is a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 237, subd. (a).) “‘“Violence” . . . means 

the exercise of physical force “greater than that reasonably necessary to effect the 

restraint.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] . . . ‘“Menace” is an express or implied threat of 

force.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Rogers (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1368, italics 

omitted.)

It could be argued (although the People do not do so) that defendant’s acts of 

picking Doe 1 up and carrying her down the hall to the bedroom constituted more force 

than reasonably necessary to effect the restraint. After all, defendant could have 

restrained her wherever they already were;5 he could even have attempted to orally 

copulate her there.

 

5 Doe 1 testified that they “probably w[ere] in the kitchen area, but I don’t 

remember.” 
12

As defendant points out, however, during the trip down the hall, Doe 1 thought he 

was still just play wrestling. While she was on his shoulder, and even when he threw her 

on the bed, she was laughing. This raises the question of whether defendant “compelled” 

her to go down the hall “against her will,” or, conversely, whether she consented.

“When lack of consent is a necessary element of a crime, the fact the defendant 

employed fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the victim to consent to the proscribed 

act ordinarily does not vitiate the consent to supply the required element of nonconsent. 

[Citations.] However, the courts have distinguished between ‘fraud in fact’ from ‘fraud 

in the inducement,’ concluding the former will vitiate consent even though the latter does 

not. [Citation.] . . .

“‘On the issue of consent, from an analytic standpoint, there are two kinds of 

fraud: fraud in the fact and fraud in the inducement. The distinction between the two is 

as follows: in fraud in the fact, the victim is fraudulently induced to consent to the doing 

of act X; the perpetrator of the fraud, in the guise of doing act X, actually does act Y; in 

fraud in the inducement, the victim is fraudulently induced to consent to the doing of act 

X and the perpetrator of the fraud does commit act X. [¶] Fraud in the fact, it has been 

said, vitiates consent. [Citation.] It appears equally reasonable to say that where there is 

fraud in the fact, there was no consent to begin with. Consent that act X may be done is 

not consent that act Y be done, when act Y is the act complained of. [¶] On the other 

hand, fraud in the inducement does not vitiate consent. [Citation.] “[T]he basic common 

law rule [is] that, unless there is statutory language to the contrary, whenever lack of 

consent is a necessary element of a crime, the fact that consent is obtained through 
13

misrepresentation will not supply the essential element of nonconsent.” [Citation.]’ 

[Citation.]” (People v. Stuedemann (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1, 6-7.)

Here, Doe 1 knew that defendant was picking her up and carrying her down the 

hall; what she did not know was that he intended to force her to orally copulate him. 

Strictly speaking, there was no fraud; defendant did not make any representations to 

Doe 1 about why he was carrying her down the hall. Nevertheless, he took advantage of 

the fact that they had been play wrestling earlier, and thus she was likely to misconstrue 

his purpose. Accordingly, the distinction between fraud in fact and fraud in the 

inducement is instructive. Doe 1 was fully aware that defendant was compelling her to 

go down the hall and into the bedroom; thus, her consent to this was valid.6

We therefore turn to the events in the bedroom. By sitting on Doe 1’s chest and 

pinning her arms down with her knees, defendant used just enough force to keep Doe 1 in 

place. She testified that she “fought the whole time”; however, she did not testify that 

 

6

In the interest of completeness, we note that Doe 1 did testify:

“Q. Did you want him to pick you up and take you in the back?

“A. Of course not.” 

However, the fact that she did not want him to does not change the fact that, once 

he did so, she consented. In any event, even assuming this was sufficient evidence of 

lack of consent, given her admissions that she was laughing and unafraid, there would be 

insufficient evidence that defendant knew that she did not consent. (See People v. 

Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 153-158 [defendant is not guilty of rape if he is under a 

mistake of fact as to whether victim consents].) It would also raise an issue as to whether 

the trial court should at least have instructed on misdemeanor false imprisonment.
14

defendant used any force in response, and the fact that his weight was already on her 

chest and arms would seem to be sufficient to keep her under control.

However, this was not all that defendant did. He also tried to put his penis in her 

mouth. Although he was not able to get it all the way in, because she “had [her] jaw 

clenched,” he did push it up against her mouth. This was a use of force against her 

person beyond what was necessary to effect her restraint.

We recognize that, on this view, the felony false imprisonment and the forcible 

oral copulation consisted of exactly the same acts. However, as we will further hold in 

part IV, post, and as the People concede, this means that, under Penal Code section 654, 

defendant can be punished for only one of these crimes. He can nevertheless be found 

guilty of both. (People v. Gonzalez (2014) 60 Cal.4th 533, 537.)

We therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence of violence.

IV

PENAL CODE SECTION 654

Defendant contends that the trial court violated Penal Code section 654 by 

imposing separate and consecutive sentences on count 1 (forcible oral copulation of 

Doe 1) and count 2 (forcible false imprisonment of Doe 1). 

The People concede the error. We agree.

Penal Code section 654, subdivision (a), as relevant here, states: “An act or 

omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be 

punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of 
15

imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one 

provision.”

“‘“Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to 

more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective 

of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be 

punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one.”’ [Citation.]” (People 

v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885.)

“‘“‘A trial court’s implied finding that a defendant harbored a separate intent and 

objective for each offense will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by substantial 

evidence.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. McKinzie (2012) 54 Cal.4th 

1302, 1368, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, 

fn. 3.)

Here, defendant forcibly restrained Doe 1 so that he could accomplish his intent 

and objective of forcing her to orally copulate him. There is no evidence that he had any 

additional intent and objective. Hence, multiple punishment was barred. (People v. Wall

(1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 978, 990.)

V

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified by staying the two-year term imposed on count 2. This 

reduces the total sentence to 30 years to life in prison. The judgment as thus modified is 

affirmed.
16

The clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare an amended sentencing 

minute order and an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the 

amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Pen. Code, 

§§ 1213, subd. (a), 1216.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

J.

MILLER

J.