DeSimone

In this appeal, appellant Robert Frederick DeSimone challenges the calculation of his sentence under Penal Code section 667.61, the so-called “One Strike” law. We reject his argument that only one “multiple victim” finding under section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5) was permitted in this case, and affirm the judgment.

Factual Background

Appellant and D. married in 1991 and had two sons together. D.’s daughter Desiree, bom in 1985, also lived with the couple. The marriage started out well but deteriorated because D. would not acquiesce to appellant’s demands for oral sex. Appellant would sometimes wake D. in the middle of the night and masturbate over her. On some nights he would manipulate her body or attempt to place his penis in her mouth while she pretended to sleep. D. believed appellant was aroused by her resistance and did not enjoy sex unless it was “like a fight.”

By early 1996, appellant had become more sexually demanding in his relationship with D. One night he straddled her and tried to stick his penis in her mouth. When she resisted, he bound her hands and feet to the bedposts using his neckties. Although D. cried for him to stop, he forced her to have vaginal…