People v. Paz
10 Cal. App. 5th 1023
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jose Rodriguez Paz abducted H. Ramirez at knifepoint, dragged her to an isolated parking area, removed her clothing, and sexually assaulted her — victim testified defendant touched her "behind" with his penis, said he "started having anal sex," and also penetrated her vagina; DNA from vaginal semen and fingerprints at the scene matched defendant.
- Charged with aggravated kidnapping (§ 209(b)(1)), kidnapping (§ 207(a)), forcible rape (§ 261(a)(2)), and forcible sodomy (§ 286(c)(2)(A)), with deadly-weapon and One-Strike allegations; convicted on all counts and enhancements; admitted prison priors.
- Trial included translated testimony (Spanish interpreter); defendant did not testify; defense conceded the assault occurred but disputed identity.
- Sentenced to 70 years to life: two consecutive one-strike terms (each 35-to-life) for rape and forcible sodomy (each included a 25-to-life one-strike term plus a 10-year deadly-weapon enhancement); other counts were stayed/dismissed as appropriate.
- On appeal, Paz challenged sufficiency of sodomy penetration evidence, alleged ineffective assistance for several trial omissions, argued the court should have instructed jurors to rely on the interpreter’s translation, disputed consecutive one-strike sentencing, and claimed the court failed to state reasons for imposing upper-term weapon enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Paz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of anal penetration for forcible sodomy (§ 286) | Victim’s testimony that defendant “started having anal sex,” description of movement, plus perianal lacerations, suffice to prove penetration of the anal opening. | Testimony did not establish penis entered anus/rectum; injuries were to perianal area only and could reflect digital penetration or buttocks contact. | Court holds sexual penetration for sodomy requires penetration past the buttocks into the perianal area (not necessarily past the anal verge or into the anal canal); Ramirez’s testimony plus perianal lacerations were sufficient. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to detective’s description of surveillance video, failure to request CALCRIM No. 333 (lay opinion instruction), failure to object to term “rape kit” | Any omissions were not prejudicial: video testimony was brief and unidentified, CALCRIM 333 would not have altered overwhelming identity evidence (fingerprints and DNA), and "rape kit" usage was not shown prejudicial. | Trial counsel’s failures undermined fairness and were unreasonable; these omissions permitted improper evidence/argument. | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choices were reasonable given strategy and the omissions were not prejudicial. |
| Court’s sua sponte duty to instruct jury to abide by interpreter’s translation | No reversible error; any failure harmless — no record juror knew Spanish or that translation was inaccurate. | Court should have instructed jurors to accept the interpreter’s translation to prevent misinterpretation of critical, translated testimony. | Failure to give such instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on this record. |
| Consecutive one-strike sentences and sentencing reasons for weapon enhancements | Consecutive one-strike terms permissible (court exercised discretion and would have imposed consecutive terms); failure to state reasons for upper-term weapon enhancements was error but harmless. | Consecutive one-strike terms unauthorized because crimes were not on "separate occasions" allowing mandatory consecutive terms; court failed to state reasons for upper-term enhancements so remand required. | Court properly exercised discretion to impose consecutive terms; judgment modified to clarify sentence invoked § 667.61(a) and (d) (striking the portion tied to subdivision (e)), and the failure to state reasons for weapon upper terms was harmless — no resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (constitutional requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- People v. White, 2 Cal.5th 349 (statutory parity among major sex-offense statutes and interpreting penetration elements)
- People v. Gonzalez, 141 Cal.App.3d 786 (victim’s testimony of attempted entry and pain can support slight penetration)
- People v. Karsai, 131 Cal.App.3d 224 (California precedent that external genital penetration suffices for sexual-intercourse/penetration element)
- People v. Boyce, 59 Cal.4th 672 (no sua sponte duty to give certain supplemental jury instructions)
- People v. Valenti, 243 Cal.App.4th 1140 (discussion of One-Strike sentencing and appellate correction of unauthorized sentences)