People v. Garcia, A139924

Background

Defendant Pedro G. Garcia, while an invited overnight guest at his sister‑in‑law Esmeralda’s home, forcibly raped and sodomized his 12‑year‑old niece (Jane Doe I) on April 17, 2011; he was convicted by jury of aggravated rape, aggravated sodomy, and a forcible lewd act on a child under 14, with a special‑circumstance finding that the lewd act occurred during first‑degree burglary.
The burglary finding triggered a mandatory sentence of life without possibility of parole under California’s “One Strike” law (Pen. Code § 667.61).
At trial the prosecution introduced: Jane Doe I’s recorded forensic interview and trial testimony, medical/forensic evidence corroborating anal/vaginal trauma, defendant’s recorded statements (various inconsistent admissions/denials), and testimony from Jane Doe II (defendant’s daughter) alleging a separate prior sodomy by defendant.
The defense disputed penetration and credibility; defendant testified and provided alternative accounts and asserted coercive interrogation and threats influenced some statements.
The trial court admitted prior‑uncharged sexual‑offense evidence under Evid. Code § 1108 and gave modified jury instructions on burglary and prior‑bad‑act evidence; the court ordered $75,000 restitution (noneconomic) to Jane Doe I and imposed life without parole; defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an invited overnight guest can be convicted of first‑degree burglary for committing a felony in the host’s room	People: burglary statute (§459) covers entry into a room with intent to commit a felony absent unconditional possessory right or owner’s knowledge and endorsement of felonious intent; guest here lacked such unconditional possessory right or consent to commit a felony	Garcia: as an invited overnight guest staying in the room, he had sufficient authority/possessory interest so he could not legally burglarize that room	Court: guest status does not preclude burglary when entry is unauthorized for the felonious purpose; sufficient evidence supported burglary finding and special‑circumstance life term affirmed
Whether the trial court’s burglary instruction (making absence of consent an element and allowing implied consent for felony purpose) was reversible error	People: instruction properly addressed consent as a question for the jury given defense counsel’s argument; any defects were harmless	Garcia: instruction misstated law by making absence of consent an element and misstated scope of consent (implied consent to felony), violating due process	Court: instruction was legally erroneous but errors favored defendant and were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Admissibility and instructional treatment of prior uncharged sexual offenses (Evid. Code §1108)	People: prior acts probative of intent, propensity, and credibility; similar facts and victims increase probative value; court properly weighed §352 factors and limited cross‑examination	Garcia: court failed to test reliability, should have held §402 hearing, and jury instruction was vague and lowered the People’s burden	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting §1108 evidence; defendant forfeited objections to instructional form and, despite some vagueness (esp. as to Jane Doe I), any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence
Victim restitution ($75,000 noneconomic) and constitutional challenges (equal protection; right to jury on restitution; cruel & unusual challenge to life sentence)	People: restitution authorized by Cal. Const. art. I, §28 and §1202.4(f)(3)(F); restitution is remedial (not punishment) so no Apprendi jury right; One‑Strike life term authorized and proportionate given facts	Garcia: statute selectively allows noneconomic restitution only for §288 offenders (equal protection); imposition of noneconomic restitution without jury violates Apprendi and state jury rights; life without parole is grossly disproportionate	Court: no equal protection violation—rational basis exists to treat §288 victims differently; restitution is remedial so Apprendi/jury claims forfeited and meritless; sentencing discretion not abused and life term was not cruel or unusual given gravity, circumstances, and defendant’s conduct

Key Cases Cited

People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709 (Cal. 1975) (occupant’s unconditional possessory right precludes burglary of one’s own dwelling)
People v. Abilez, 41 Cal.4th 472 (Cal. 2007) (guest can be guilty of burglary for unauthorized entry into particular rooms)
People v. Sparks, 28 Cal.4th 71 (Cal. 2002) (intent formed after entry can support burglary conviction)
People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (Evid. Code §1108 admissibility and §352 balancing for prior sexual offense evidence)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional harmless‑error standard)
People v. Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (Cal. 1972) (state prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment; proportionality framework)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis for noncapital sentences)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (life without parole not per se cruel and unusual)