Court Opinion

ID: 9395303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 18:02:47.022782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:07.175272
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/17/23 P. v. Renteria CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION SEVEN

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B316446

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. 1PH00766)
           v.

 LUIS RENTERIA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Temporary Judge
(Pursuant to Cal. Const. art. VI, § 21). Affirmed.
      Jason M. Howell, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, John Yang, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
      The superior court revoked Luis Renteria’s parole following
an evidentiary hearing, finding by a preponderance of the
evidence that Renteria had violated its terms and conditions by
committing a simple battery on Yennifer D., a developmentally
challenged 25-year-old woman living next door to the halfway
house where Renteria was residing. On appeal Renteria
contends the evidence he touched Yennifer’s hair and shoulder
was insufficient to establish a battery. We affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Renteria was paroled in November 2019 after serving more
than 29 years of an indeterminate 16-year-to-life state prison
sentence for second degree murder and conspiracy to commit
murder. On February 1, 2021 Renteria was a resident at a
transitional living facility on East 64th Street in Los Angeles.
Next door to the facility was the private residence of Silvia Bello
Ojeda (Bello), who lived there with her husband, children, sister-
in-law Yennifer and mother-in-law, Manuela Garza.
       On February 8, 2021 the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a petition to revoke
Renteria’s parole, alleging Renteria had committed a sexual
battery on Yennifer. Renteria’s parole was preliminarily revoked
the following day. The petition was amended over Renteria’s
objection on October 4, 2021 to allege a simple battery (Pen.
Code, § 242).
       Bello provided the only testimony at the parole revocation
hearing describing Renteria’s interaction with Yennifer on the
morning of February 1, 2021. Bello was in the yard outside her
home where her five-year-old son was playing when Renteria, on
the other side of a wrought iron fence, spoke to her, telling her
she was pretty, and then shook her hand. Bello responded that

                                 2
she was married and told Renteria he should not be speaking to
her in that manner. After Bello said she was going to tell her
husband, Renteria became rude; and Bello went inside her house.
Her son moved to the other side of the yard to play.
        About five minutes after Bello went inside the house, she
heard Yennifer outside talking to Renteria. Bello returned to the
yard and saw Yennifer sitting on the 18-inch high ledge that ran
alongside the fence. Yennifer was facing Bello’s yard with her
back against the fence. Renteria was standing very close to
Yennifer on the other side of the fence with his body touching the
bars of the fence.
        According to Bello, Yennifer was touching her own hair, as
she often did; and Renteria “was like sniffing, smelling like he
wanted to have her close.” As Bello got closer to Yennifer, she
saw Renteria move “like he was attempting to touch [Yennifer’s]
hair, but he wasn’t—like wasn’t able to grab onto her hair. But
not pulling or tugging at her hair, you know, like touching her
hair a little bit.” The prosecutor asked, “So he touched her hair a
little bit?” Bello responded, “And when he touched it, he also
                                   1
touched her shoulder a little bit.”
       Seeing this interaction, Bello said to Yennifer, “‘Get inside.
I don’t want you out here.’” When Bello told Yennifer to go back
inside the house, Renteria “grabbed her shoulder and said, ‘Don’t
leave, don’t go.’” As he did, Yennifer moved her shoulder away
from him.

1
        A moment later during her direct testimony, Bello
repeated, “When I walked toward them, he grabbed her hair a
little bit and touched her shoulder slightly.”

                                  3
       The court asked Bello to demonstrate how Renteria
grabbed Yennifer’s shoulder. Defense counsel described Bello’s
actions for the record: “She is taking her left forearm and putting
her right hand—open hand, spread fingers, and wraps it around
her fore[arm] and then closed her fingers onto her fore[arm].”
The court clarified, “And the forearm is described as being the
shoulder of her sister-in-law.”
       After Bello told Yennifer to go inside, Renteria spoke to
Bello, insisting she allow Yennifer to remain; but he did not keep
his hand on Yennifer’s shoulder and did not attempt to hold her
back or keep her from leaving. Bello replied, “‘I’m taking care of
her. I’m in charge of her. And if I tell her to go inside, she needs
to go inside.’” Yennifer followed Bello toward the house; and, as
she did, Renteria yelled at her to stay.
       Once inside the house Yennifer sat in the living room and,
according to Bello, “seemed sad.” Bello believed “it was because
of something that had happened with her father in Mexico. And I
thought maybe she was feeling something because of
something—because of what happened over there.”
       Yennifer’s mother testified that she returned home around
2:00 p.m. on the day of the incident. Yennifer appeared to be
“frightened, and she was quiet.” The court asked, “But you don’t
know why she was frightened or quiet?” Garza responded, “Until
Silvia Bello told me.” After the incident Yennifer began sleeping
a lot and wetting herself, which had not happened previously.
       Garza also testified Yennifer had been diagnosed with
“mental retardation,” had the mental capacity of a four-year-old
child, and could not speak in any form of sentence. According to
her mother, Yennifer laughs sometimes when she is nervous, but
also if she is happy.

                                 4
      Los Angeles Police Officer Christina Oka testified that she
and her partner, responding to a radio call, went to the
East 64th Street residence in the late afternoon of February 1,
2021 where they first met with Bello, who generally described
                                  2
Renteria’s contact with Yennifer. The officers asked that
Yennifer, who had gone out with her mother, be brought home.
When Yennifer and Garza returned to the residence, the officers
questioned Yennifer about what had happened. Although
portions of that interview, including Officer Oka’s description of
Yennifer’s gestures that suggested Renteria had groped her
breasts, were ruled inadmissible, the court allowed Officer Oka’s
testimony that Yennifer was laughing at some point during their
conversation.
       In Renteria’s defense, one of his counsel’s investigators
testified that Bello stated several times during a telephone
interview that she did not see Renteria touch Yennifer.
       After hearing the evidence, the court found that Renteria
had committed a simple battery in violation of the conditions of
his parole and remanded him to the custody of the CDCR.
Explaining its ruling, the court stated it credited Bello’s
testimony describing her observations of Renteria’s conduct and
Yennifer’s reaction to it. The court found a touching had
occurred, “that Mr. Renteria did have his hands on her.” With
respect to the offensive nature of the contact, the court
emphasized that Yennifer was “clearly, as the court observed[3]
and heard testimony, she’s significantly developmentally

2
      Bello’s husband translated for the officers.
3
      The parties stipulated the court could view Officer Oka’s
body cam video of her interview with Yennifer.

                                 5
disabled.” Continuing, the court found, “It’s reasonable that
Mr. Renteria was aware that she had [a] significant mental
disability—actually, developmental disabilities, and that placed
her in a very vulnerable place. . . . I think this is one of [these]
situations where he took advantage of a very vulnerable person.”
The court then found the touching was “sexual in nature,”
although not necessarily for sexual gratification at that time, but
something like “‘to get to know you better because you’re a
woman.’”
      Renteria filed a timely notice of appeal.
                          DISCUSSION
      1. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review
      “Parole revocation determinations shall be based upon a
preponderance of evidence admitted at hearings including
documentary evidence, direct testimony, or hearsay evidence
offered by parole agents, peace officers, or a victim.” (Pen. Code,
§ 3044, subd. (a)(5); see In re Miller (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1228,
1234-1235; see also People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437,
441-442, 446-447 [preponderance of the evidence standard
applies at a probation revocation hearing; “[p]arole and probation
revocation hearings are equivalent in terms of the requirements
of due process”].)
      We review a decision to revoke parole for substantial
evidence (see People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318;
People v. Kurey (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 840, 848)—that is,
evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value. (See
People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 302.) In doing so, we
accord great deference to the superior court’s ruling, presuming
in support of its order the existence of every fact the court could
reasonably deduce from the evidence and resolving neither

                                 6
credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. “‘When a trial court’s
factual determination is attacked on the ground that there is no
substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court
begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the
entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or
uncontradicted, which will support the determination.’” (People
v. Superior Court (Jones) (1998) 18 Cal.4th 667, 681; accord,
People v. Penunuri (2018) 5 Cal.5th 126, 142; People v. Zamudio
(2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357; see People v. Urke (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.)
      2. Simple (Misdemeanor) Battery
      “A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or
violence upon the person of another.” (Pen. Code, § 242.) “The
slightest degree of touching is sufficient.” (In re B.L. (2015)
239 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1495; accord, People v. Myers (1998)
61 Cal.App.4th 328, 335.) “‘Any harmful or offensive touching
constitutes an unlawful use of force or violence’ under this
statute. [Citation.] ‘It has long been established that “the least
touching” may constitute battery. In other words, force against
the person is enough; it need not be violent or severe, it need not
cause bodily harm or even pain, and it need not leave a mark.’”
(People v. Shockley (2013) 58 Cal.4th 400, 404.)
      3. Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding That
         Renteria Committed a Battery
      Renteria does not dispute that he intentionally touched
Yennifer, but contends the evidence at the revocation hearing
was insufficient for the court to find his touching was “offensive”

                                 7
                                4
and thus constituted a battery. In support of his argument
Renteria challenges the court’s assessment that the touching was
sexual in nature, its equating of Yennifer’s limited cognitive
capabilities to the vulnerability of young children and its citation
in that regard to two cases that involved substantial acts of
              5
sexual abuse.
       Whether or not a wholly innocuous interpretation of
Renteria’s conduct is plausible, it was reasonable for the superior
court to infer that, after flirting with Bello, Renteria’s smelling
and then touching Yennifer’s hair was at least tinged with sexual
undertones. And it was equally reasonable to infer that Yennifer,
with her back to Renteria and extremely limited cognitive
abilities, did not consent to that offensive touching, however
slight it may have been. (Cf. People v. Dealba (2015)
242 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [“‘[o]nly a slight unprivileged

4
      Renteria does not contend the superior court abused its
discretion in revoking parole after finding he had violated the
conditions of his supervision by committing a crime. (See People
v. Butcher, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 318 [we review the
superior court’s decision to revoke probation or parole for an
abuse of discretion].)
5
      Analogizing Yennifer’s limited cognitive capability to the
defenselessness of young children, the superior court cited People
v. Thomas (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1278, overruled in part by
People v. Shockley, supra, 58 Cal.4th at page 406, which involved
the commission of lewd acts as well as battery, and a decision
from Division One of this court, depublished by the Supreme
Court, involving rape and the continuous sexual abuse of several
minors.

                                    8
touching is needed to satisfy the force requirement of a criminal
battery’”].)
       In any event, a finding of misdemeanor battery does not
require proof that the touching was sexually motivated. (See
People v. Shockley, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 405 [“[o]ne can easily
commit battery without also committing lewd conduct”].) And, of
course, we review the superior court’s ruling, not its reasoning,
and may uphold it on any basis presented by the record. (See,
e.g., People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 123 [“we review the
trial court’s ruling, ‘not the court’s reasoning and, if the ruling
was correct on any ground, we affirm’”]; People v. Zapien (1993)
4 Cal.4th 929, 976 [“‘“No rule of decision is better or more firmly
established by authority, nor one resting upon a sounder basis of
reason and propriety, than that a ruling or decision, itself correct
in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a
wrong reason. If right upon any theory of the law applicable to
the case, it must be sustained regardless of the considerations
which may have moved the trial court to its conclusion”’”].)
       Here, even if slightly touching Yennifer’s hair did not
constitute battery, when Bello told her sister-in-law to go inside,
Renteria grabbed Yennifer’s shoulder and implored her to remain
outside with him. In response, Yennifer moved her shoulder
slightly away, indicating the touching was unwanted.
Thereafter, Yennifer displayed numerous signs that the incident
upset her, as described by Bello and Garza. Renteria’s actions
and Yennifer’s responses provided sufficient evidence to support
the superior court’s finding of an unprivileged and offensive
touching.

                                 9
                       DISPOSITION
      The order revoking parole and remanding Renteria to the
custody of the CDCR is affirmed.

                                   PERLUSS, P. J.

     We concur:

           SEGAL, J.

           FEUER, J.

                              10