88 Cal.App.5th 474
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant Daniel Sedano (appeal F082933) was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 (count 1), oral copulation/sexual penetration of a child ≤10 (count 2), sexual intercourse/sodomy with a child ≤10 (count 3), and forcible rape (count 4).
- Victim ("Jane Doe") is defendant’s adoptive niece; she testified to repeated sexual abuse from ages ~5–18 and delayed disclosure until age 19.
- Jury acquitted on count 1 and convicted on counts 2–4; trial court sentenced an aggregate 46 years to life (consecutive terms including indeterminate life terms on counts 2 and 3).
- Prosecution’s CSAAS expert (David Love) testified about two statistical points: 94% of abusers have a preexisting relationship with the child, and substantial percentages of abused children delay disclosure (74% at 1 year, 50% at 5 years, some 10–15 years). Defense counsel did not object.
- On appeal, Sedano raised (1) an ex post facto challenge to count 2, (2) an evidentiary challenge (and ineffective assistance) to the CSAAS statistics testimony, and (3) a claim that the aggregate indeterminate sentences were constitutionally excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto application of §288.7 to count 2 | People conceded reversal if jury could have based conviction on pre‑effective date conduct | §288.7 (effective 9/20/2006) was applied to conduct before its enactment (oral copulation at age 6 in May 2006) | Reversed count 2 for ex post facto error; remanded for possible retrial on count 2 and full resentencing (People may retry) |
| Admissibility of CSAAS statistical testimony (and ineffective assistance for not objecting) | CSAAS statistics were admissible to rebut misconceptions and aid credibility assessment | Statistics impermissibly vouched for complainant (bolstered credibility) and counsel was ineffective for not objecting | Admission of the challenged statistics was not an abuse of discretion; they rebut common myths (not false‑report rates); any error would be harmless; ineffective‑assistance claim rejected |
| Excessive / cruel & unusual aggregate sentence | Sentence lawful as imposed | Aggregate indeterminate terms produce de facto life without parole and are excessive | Court declined to decide on the merits because reversal of count 2 and remand for resentencing make the issue premature; trial court to consider at resentencing if raised |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rojas, 237 Cal.App.4th 1298 (ex post facto prohibits retroactive expansion of criminal liability)
- People v. McAlpin, 53 Cal.3d 1289 (CSAAS testimony admissible to rehabilitate child‑complainant credibility and explain delayed reporting)
- People v. Bowker, 203 Cal.App.3d 385 (CSAAS admissible to dispel specific myths about child abuse disclosures)
- People v. Julian, 34 Cal.App.5th 878 (expert statistics on false allegations may impermissibly suggest probability of guilt)
- People v. Wilson, 33 Cal.App.5th 559 (error to admit false‑allegation percentage statistics that tend to vouch for complainant)
- People v. Lapenias, 67 Cal.App.5th 162 (limits on CSAAS testimony; caution against vouching)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for harmless error review)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (when part of sentence is stricken on appeal, full resentencing is appropriate)