Court Opinion

ID: 9384416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 19:02:46.785028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.275806
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/3/23 P. v. Rivera CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C095684

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 18FE011519)

           v.

    MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ RIVERA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury found defendant Miguel Angel Hernandez Rivera guilty of 14 counts of
committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288,
subd. (a)1 —counts 1-7, 14-20), three counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a
14 year old while being at least 10 years older (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)—counts 8-10), one
count of going to meet a minor for a lewd purpose (§ 288.4, subd. (b)—count 11), and

1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
two counts of annoying or molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (a)—counts 12 and 13). The
jury found that defendant committed his violations of section 288 against more than one
victim (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)) and was out on bail when he committed at least one of
the offenses in counts 14 through 20 (§ 12022.1).
       The trial court sentenced defendant to 34 years in prison: three years on count 1;
two years each on counts 2 through 7; eight months each on counts 8 through 10; one
year on count 11; two years each on counts 14 through 20; and two years for the section
12022.1 enhancement. The trial court also sentenced defendant to one year each on
counts 12 and 13, to be served in county jail, which was ultimately deemed served based
on his credit for time served.
       On appeal, defendant raises three arguments pertaining to his conviction for going
to meet a minor for lewd a purpose (count 11): (1) there was insufficient evidence that he
went to the arranged meeting place; (2) his sentence was unauthorized because the
verdict did not contain a finding that he went to the arranged meeting place; and (3) the
trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the lesser included offense of arranging a
meeting with a minor for a lewd purpose (§ 288.4, subd. (a)). We will affirm the
judgment.
                                   I. BACKGROUND
       In light of the issues raised by defendant, we summarize only those facts that are
relevant to the question of whether he went to the arranged meeting place with respect to
count 11:
       On June 14, 2018, the victim made a pretext call to defendant from the police
station. Defendant said he would pick the victim up from his house to go somewhere. At
1:20 p.m., defendant texted the victim that he would be there at 2 p.m. Just before 2 p.m.,
defendant sent a text message to the victim stating that he was there. Defendant pulled
his vehicle up to the curb in front of the victim’s house. A police officer testified the
vehicle was running. Officers conducted a felony vehicle stop and arrested defendant.

                                              2
                                     II. DISCUSSION
A.     Sufficiency of the Evidence
       Section 288.4, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “Every person who,
motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, arranges a meeting
with a minor . . . for the purpose of exposing his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area,
having the child expose his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, or engaging in lewd or
lascivious behavior, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars
($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine
and imprisonment.” Subdivision (b) increases the proscribed punishment when this
person also “goes to the arranged meeting place at or about the arranged time.”
Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence that he went to the arranged meeting
place. We disagree.
       “In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
conviction, the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most
favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—
evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of
fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The appellate
court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could
reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)
       The meeting place was at the victim’s house, and the plan was for defendant to
pick up the victim and take him elsewhere. Defendant argues there was not substantial
evidence from which the jury could conclude he went to the arranged meeting place,
because the victim was not there and he did not go inside the victim’s house. A
conviction under section 288.4, subdivision (b) does not require that the victim went to
the arranged meeting place—only the defendant. Similarly, defendant has identified no
legal or factual basis for his assertion that he had to go inside the house to have gone “to
the arranged meeting place.” (§ 288.4, subd. (b).) We agree with the People that

                                              3
defendant indisputably went to the arranged meeting place. Indeed, defendant texted the
victim that he was there. As such, substantial evidence supported a conviction under
section 288.4, subdivision (b). We turn now to the question of whether the jury convicted
defendant of this offense.
B.     Verdict Form
       Defendant argues his sentence was unauthorized because the verdict form did not
contain a finding that he went to the arranged meeting place at or about the arranged
time. We are unpersuaded.
       “ ‘ “ ‘A verdict is to be given a reasonable intendment and be construed in light of
the issues submitted to the jury and the instructions of the court.’ [Citations.]”
[Citations.] “The form of a verdict is immaterial provided the intention to convict of the
crime charged is unmistakably expressed. [Citation.]” [Citation.] “[T]echnical defects
in a verdict may be disregarded if the jury’s intent to convict of a specified offense within
the charges is unmistakably clear, and the accused’s substantial rights suffered no
prejudice. . . .” ’ ‘The verdict is insufficient only “if it be susceptible of a different
construction than that of guilty of the crime charged.” ’ ” (People v. Chevalier (1997) 60
Cal.App.4th 507, 514.)
       “ ‘[T]he jury’s function [is] to find whether the facts necessary for conviction
[have] been proven, by assessment of the evidence admitted at trial in light of the court’s
instructions defining the types and quanta of facts necessary for conviction. The verdict,
culminating this process, [is] the jury’s statement whether it [has] or [has] not found
those facts.’ [Citation.] ‘[T]he function of the verdict is to register the jury’s
determination of whether the evidence sufficiently establishes the facts that the
instructions recite are necessary to conviction.’ [Citation.] There is no need in this
factfinding process for the enumeration in the verdict of all of the elements of the offense
or enhancement.” (People v. Chevalier, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 514, emphasis
omitted.)

                                                4
         The jury’s verdict as to count 11 stated: “We the jury in the above-entitled action,
find the defendant, MIGUEL HERNANDEZ-RIVERA, GUILTY of a violation of . . .
Section 288.4(b), arrange [sic] a meeting with a minor, to wit, [J. Doe], for the purpose of
exposing his genitals, having the child expose his genitals or pubic or rectal area or
engaging in lewd and lascivious behavior on or about June 14, 2018, as charged in Count
Eleven of the Information.” (Italics added.) The verdict did not specifically mention the
requirement that defendant went “to the arranged meeting place at or about the arranged
time,” but did specifically reference the charges in the information. Further, “a verdict
should be construed in connection with the information.” (People v. Mackabee (1989)
214 Cal.App.3d 1250, 1256.)
         Defendant concedes the information properly charged the section 288.4,
subdivision (b) offense and specifically alleged he “did go to the arranged meeting place
at or about the arranged time.”
         Accordingly, the jury was instructed, in relevant part, that defendant was “charged
in Count Eleven with going to a meeting with a minor for a lewd purpose in violation of
. . . section 288.4(b). [¶] To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People
must provide that: [¶] 1. The defendant arranged a meeting with a minor; [¶] . . . [¶]
AND [¶] 4. The defendant went to the arranged meeting place at or about the arranged
time.”
         It is unmistakably clear from the instructions and the verdict that the jury found
defendant guilty of the crime of going to a meeting with a minor for a lewd purpose
under section 288.4, subdivision (b), and that, in so doing, it found defendant went to the
arranged meeting place at or about the arranged time. We therefore reject defendant’s
assertion that his sentence was unauthorized.
C.       Lesser Included Offenses
         Arranging a meeting with a minor for a lewd purpose under section 288.4,
subdivision (a) is a lesser included offense of going to meet a minor for a lewd purpose

                                               5
under section 288.4, subdivision (b). (People v. Ramirez (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 538,
546-548.) The trial court instructed only on section 288.4, subdivision (b). Defendant
argues the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the lesser included offense. We
disagree. “ ‘A trial court must instruct the jury on a lesser included offense, whether or
not the defendant so requests, whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty of only the
lesser offense is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury.’ ” (People v.
Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 463.) “We review de novo the trial court’s determination.”
(Ibid.)
          Defendant argues a reasonable juror could have concluded from the fact the victim
was not at his house and defendant was arrested outside the house that the evidence
raised a question whether defendant went to the arranged meeting place. We disagree.
As we previously concluded, the fact that defendant went to the arranged meeting place
was indisputable.
                                      III. DISPOSITION
          The judgment is affirmed.

                                                          /S/

                                                  RENNER, J.

          We concur:

          /S/

          HULL, Acting P. J.

          /S/

          MESIWALA, J.

                                              6