People v. Ultreras CA2/6, B310187

Background

In March 2020 defendant Anthony Ultreras approached a 13‑year‑old girl (I.M.) on a public bus, made sexual propositions, followed her home, gripped her hands, slid his hands under her sweater and touched her bare wrists while asking to kiss her. He was convicted of a lewd act on a child under 14 (§ 288(a)) and of child molestation (§ 647.6(a)) for related conduct.
Police seized Ultreras’s phone and memory cards that contained numerous child‑pornography images; he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography (§ 311.11(b)).
The jury heard and the court considered prior sex‑offense convictions: a 2012 § 288(a) conviction involving his 10‑year‑old daughter and a 2017 § 647.6(a) conviction. A 2004 prior was noted in the probation report.
Sentencing: the court doubled terms under California’s Three‑Strikes/One‑Strike schemes, imposing an aggregate of 50 years‑to‑life (for the § 288 conviction, doubled) plus a determinate 14 years 8 months (for other counts). The court denied the Romero motion to strike the prior.
On appeal Ultreras argued (1) insufficiency of evidence for the § 288 conviction, (2) abuse of discretion in denying the Romero motion, (3) cruel and unusual punishment, and (4) that Senate Bill No. 567 (amending § 1170) and Senate Bill No. 81 (amending § 1385) require resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for § 288(a) conviction	Evidence (touching bare skin, sexual statements, prior acts, and pornography) supports lewd intent and immediate sexual purpose	Touching limited (wrists); lacked contemporaneous sexual purpose — only scheduling future encounter	Conviction supported: substantial evidence that touching and statements showed immediate lewd intent
Denial of Romero motion to strike prior strike	Denial proper given defendant’s repeated child‑sex offenses, recency of priors, parole violations, and danger to public	Prior strikes were remote/less serious; Romero relief warranted	No abuse of discretion: court properly balanced factors and denied Romero motion
Cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment / state analog)	Sentence lawful given recidivism, One‑Strike/Three‑Strikes policies and public safety concerns	Aggregate sentence (50‑to‑life + determinate term) is grossly disproportionate	Issue forfeited (not raised below); on merits sentence not cruel or unusual given recidivism and statutory schemes
Application of SB 567 (§ 1170) and SB 81 (§ 1385)	SB 567 is retroactive and requires reconsideration of upper term unless aggravating facts were stipulated/found; SB 81 applies on resentencing to require dismissal of enhancements in furtherance of justice	Upper term selection improperly relied on aggravating facts not found by jury/stipulated; resentencing required and SB 81 mitigations should apply on remand	Remanded for full resentencing consistent with SB 567 and SB 81; original judgment otherwise affirmed

Key Cases Cited

People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Martinez, 11 Cal.4th 434 (1995) (scope of prohibited touching and factors for lewd intent)
People v. Alvarez, 27 Cal.4th 1161 (2002) (discussion of immediacy requirement for § 288 intent)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (standard of review and deference for Romero decision)
People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998) (factors to determine whether defendant falls outside spirit of Three‑Strikes)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (Eighth Amendment review of recidivist sentences and proportionality principles)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (retroactivity of ameliorative statutes)
People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (2020) (retroactivity principles for sentencing amelioration)
People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (2007) (harmlessness analysis where jury did not find aggravating facts)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (requirement of full resentencing on remand so trial court can exercise discretion under changed law)