Court Opinion

ID: 9919663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 21:03:13.817717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:14.307783
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Rico CA2/6

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B324778
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. 2018021180)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Ventura County)

 v.

 RICCO RICO,

      Defendant and Appellant.

       Ricco Rico appeals his convictions by jury on one count of
continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (count 1;
Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)),1 two counts of lewd act upon a child
under the age of 14 (counts 2 and 3; § 288, subd. (a)), one count of
rape of an intoxicated person (count 4; § 261, subd. (a)(3), one
count of oral copulation of an intoxicated person (count 5; § 287,
subd. (i)), and one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 287, subd.
(c)(2)(A)). Rico contends the trial court violated his due process

         1 Unlabeled statutory cites are to the Penal Code.
rights when it admitted testimony from five women about
uncharged acts of sexual assault and molestation (Evid. Code,
§ 1108, subd. (a)). We will affirm.
              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                    Victim E.R. (Counts 1 and 2)
       Rico’s daughter E.R. was born in 1996. She was 11 years
old when Rico and her mother divorced. Rico began sexually
abusing E.R. around this time. He would give her prescription
pills to swallow before bed and ask her to sleep with him because
he was lonely. She would wake up to find Rico touching her,
forcing her hand to stroke his genitals, or even raping her. This
happened two or three times a week. Rico also molested her
during a camping trip to Lake Casitas and when the family
traveled to a football game in Arizona.
                        Victim J.R. (Count 3)
       Rico’s daughter J.R. was born to a different mother in 1995.
Her parents never married. J.R. did not meet Rico until she was
around nine years old, when her mother lost custody due to
substance abuse and J.R. chose to live with Rico and his then-
wife rather than enter foster care. Rico molested her on the Lake
Casitas camping trip as well. J.R. remembered him lying next to
her, sticking his hand down her pants, touching her vaginal area,
then reaching up her shirt and touching her breasts. J.R. turned
away and Rico laughed at her. She told no one about the incident
because she feared returning to foster care.
                  Victim M.R. (Counts 4, 5, and 6)
       M.R. is Rico’s paternal half-sister and 15 years younger.
She first met Rico when he began staying in New Mexico over
summer break. M.R. began visiting California because she

                                 2
wanted to develop a relationship with her half siblings and heal
the rift between their father’s two families.
       On one such trip to California, Rico served her mixed
drinks during a family party. M.R. was only 15 and had little
experience with alcohol. She began feeling tired and dizzy. Rico
sent her a text message from across the room asking if he could
take her virginity, which she ignored. Her head began spinning
and she grew increasingly intoxicated. Rico asked her to join him
on the couch and he began rubbing her feet. He moved his hands
up her legs and placed his fingers in her vagina. He then told her
to go to bed. She got up and stumbled toward J.R.’s room. Rico
told her to go to his room instead because J.R. had school the
next day.
       M.R. awoke to Rico having sex with her in his bed. As she
went in and out of consciousness, she recalled him performing
oral sex on her and then attempting to force his penis into her
mouth. M.R. initially said nothing about the incident, but
reported it four years later when she was told that Rico had
abused several other family members.
                        Section 1108 Witnesses
       The People identified eight witnesses who would testify
pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a) about
uncharged acts of sexual abuse by Rico. This included: three of
Rico’s younger half-sisters from New Mexico (B.R., A.R., and
G.L.R.); his ex-wife’s friend (J.D.); his daughter’s friend (D.G.);
his ex-wife (G.M.R.); his ex-girlfriend (A.M.); and his half-brother
(D.R.). The trial court excluded A.M.’s and D.R.’s proffered
testimony because it was not similar enough to the charged
crimes. It allowed the remaining six to testify.

                                 3
      B.R. was six years younger than Rico. He began abusing
her at age 7 in New Mexico. She remembered him wrestling her
to the ground, removing her pants, and touching her vagina. The
next summer he told her to lay behind a kiddie pool that was
leaning against the house. He then removed her underwear and
sprayed a garden hose between her legs. When she was 12, he
held her against a wall by the neck and forced her to touch his
penis while he ejaculated. He threatened to “kick [her] ass” if she
told anybody.
      G.L.R. was 15 years younger than Rico. He first abused
her at age 15 at their father’s cabin. He offered to rub her
stomach because she did not feel well. She sat on the couch next
to him and they started watching a movie. He began rubbing her
stomach but slowly moved his hand down her pants. She stood
up, said she was tired, and went to her room. G.L.R. then
described three occasions when Rico reached down her pants
when she was asleep or falling asleep.
      A.R. was 14 years younger than Rico. She visited
California with a friend at age 19 to reconnect with him and
other family members. Rico offered to let A.R. and the friend
stay in his bedroom. While sleeping, she awoke to him lying next
to her trying to penetrate her vagina with his fingers. Rico
“whispered he loved [her] in her ear” as she tried to wrestle away
from him.
      J.D. described herself as best friends with Rico’s ex-wife,
G.M.R. J.D. testified about an incident when she returned to
G.M.R.’s and Rico’s house in Port Hueneme after a night of
drinking. J.D. slept on their couch because she did not want to
drive home. She awoke to Rico yanking on her pants and boots
and G.M.R. yelling “Ricco, what the fuck are you doing?” He

                                4
responded that he was helping J.D. “chang[e] into her pajamas.”
G.M.R. corroborated J.D.’s account of the incident.
       D.G. became best friends with victim J.R. in high school.
She testified about an incident that occurred when J.R. returned
home on leave after joining the Navy. D.G. had just turned 18.
They visited Rico’s house. He offered to let them sleep in his
bedroom because the other rooms were occupied. The next
morning, D.G. felt someone get into bed and start cuddling her
from behind. It was Rico. He laid against her and put his arm
and leg across her body. This made her uncomfortable so she “got
out of there as quickly as [she] could.”
                           Defense Witnesses
       Defendant called several witnesses who testified they had
never seen Rico act inappropriately around his daughters and
sisters. This included his adoptive daughter, his brother’s ex-
wife, two cousins, brother, mother, his third ex-wife, and a friend
whose children he babysat for several years.
       Rico testified in his own defense. He admitted struggling
with prescription drug addiction and mental health problems
after injuring himself at work. He denied ever molesting, raping,
or drugging his accusers and said they were all lying.
       The People called Rico’s former live-in girlfriend A.M. in
rebuttal. She testified that several times he gave her medication
or drinks that caused her to pass out. She would wake up to him
penetrating her with his penis, fingers, or an object. The defense
called a neighbor in surrebuttal who called A.M. a habitual liar.
Rico denied ever drugging her.
                        Verdict and Sentencing
       Jurors returned guilty verdicts on all six counts. They
found true special allegations on each count that he committed

                                5
the offenses against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4)),
and that each victim was under the age of 18 and prosecution
commenced prior to their 40th birthday (§ 801.1, subd. (a)(1)).
The court held a bifurcated trial on additional special
allegations.2 It found these true as well. Rico received
consecutive terms of 15 years to life on counts 1, 2, 3, and 6 and
consecutive determinate terms of six years on counts 4 and 5.
                            DISCUSSION
                        Section 1108 Evidence
       Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a) states: “In a
criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual
offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual
offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if
the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.” This
serves as a limited exception to the rule against propensity
evidence in criminal cases. (People v. Daveggio and Michaud
(2018) 4 Cal.5th 790, 822-823 (Daveggio); People v. Williams
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 1166, 1196 (Williams).) Our Legislature has
determined that prior sexual offense evidence is particularly
probative, and there is a presumption in favor of its admission.

      2 Rico waived his right to a jury trial on special allegations

that: (1) counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 “involved great violence, great
bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing
a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness” (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)); (2) counts 1 through 6 involved a
“victim [who] was particularly vulnerable” (Id., rule 4.421(a)(3));
(3) counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 were carried out in a manner that
“indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism” (Id., rule
4.421(a)(8)); and (4) that “defendant took advantage of a position
of trust or confidence to commit the offense” in counts 1 through 6
(Id., rule 4.421(a)(11)).

                                 6
(People v. Loy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 46, 61-63.) Courts should
exclude such evidence only when its prejudicial effect
substantially outweighs its probative value into the defendant’s
disposition to commit the charged offenses. (Daveggio, at p. 823;
Williams, at p. 1196.) The “prejudice” under section 352 is that
which tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant, i.e.
prejudging him based upon extraneous factors. (Daveggio. at
p. 824.)
       Our Supreme Court has long held that admitting evidence
of uncharged sex offenses does not violate the due process clause
of the United States Constitution. (Daveggio, supra, 4 Cal.5th at
p. 827; Williams, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 1196.) Rico concedes the
point but nevertheless challenges the trial court’s admitting
uncharged acts testimony from six witnesses at trial. “The sheer
number of witnesses, whose stories were not similar to the
charged offenses,” he argues, “was highly inflammatory and
unduly prejudicial.” He contends this violated his right to due
process. (See People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 913 [“The
admission of relevant evidence will not offend due process unless
the evidence is so prejudicial as to render the defendant’s trial
fundamentally unfair”].)
       The quantity of section 1108 witnesses was not unduly
prejudicial considering the number of victims and the breadth of
the allegations against Rico. The charged crimes involved
multiple victims who were sexually abused many years ago.
Allowing the People to proffer testimony from six additional
victims was not so disproportionate or cumulative “‘as to render
[his] trial fundamentally unfair.’” (See People v. Partida (2005)
37 Cal.4th 428, 439.) Their testimony consumed just one day of
eight the jury heard evidence.

                                7
      The record contradicts Rico’s description of the uncharged
crimes as “not similar” to the charged crimes. Each of the six
witnesses described being vulnerable because of their age,
intoxication, or unconscious state. “The fact that defendant
committed a sexual offense on a particularly vulnerable victim in
the past logically tends to prove he did so again with respect to
the current offenses.” (People v. Cromp (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th
476, 480 [prior rape of developmentally disabled woman not so
dissimilar to molestation of young boys].) The existence of minor
factual differences between these acts of abuse and the charged
crimes did not compel the trial court to exclude them from
evidence. (See People v. Cordova (2015) 62 Cal.4th 104, 133
[enough that charged and uncharged offenses are sex offenses
within section 1108]; People v. Escudero (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th
302, 306 [evidence demonstrated defendant took advantage of
vulnerable females regardless of their ages].)
      Lastly, the trial court properly instructed the jury about
weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, presuming
innocence, applying burdens of proof, and considering uncharged
and charged sex offenses. (CALCRIM Nos. 220 [reasonable
doubt], 222 [evidence], 226 [witnesses], 375 [evidence of
uncharged offense], 1191A [evidence of uncharged sex offense],
1191B [evidence of charged sex offense].) We presume the jury
understood and followed these instructions. (People v. Myles
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1212.)
                          Sentencing Error
      Rico received consecutive sentences of 15 years to life on
counts 1, 2, 3 and 6. He concedes the sentence on count 1, i.e.,
continuous sexual abuse of a child under section 288.5,
subdivision (a), should have been 25 years to life. (§ 667.61, subd.

                                 8
(c)(9) & (j)(1); See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354
[unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time, regardless
of whether defendant objects in trial court].)
                            DISPOSITION
       Rico’s sentence on count 1 is modified to 25 years to life
(§ 1260). The clerk of the superior court shall prepare an
amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is
affirmed in all other respects.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    CODY, J.

We concur:

     GILBERT, P. J.

     BALTODANO, J.

                                9
                    Paul W. Baelly, Judge
              Superior Court County of Ventura
               ______________________________

      Verna Wefald, 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, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.