CROMP

I concur except as to part IV, as to which I concur in the result.

A petition for a rehearing was denied August 14, 2007, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 25, 2007, SI55502.

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

Defendant molested a four-year-old and an eight-year-old over a period of about seven months in 2002 and early 2003. A jury convicted him of multiple counts of child molestation, and the trial court sentenced him to a total state prison term of 180 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior rape defendant committed; (2) a jury instruction on use of the prior rape evidence violated his due process rights; (3) the sentence violated the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings on the facts supporting the consecutive sentences violated his jury trial and due process rights. We affirm.

Defendant makes no contention that the evidence was insufficient, and, because we find no error, it is unnecessary to engage in a harmless error analysis. Therefore, we include only the most material facts, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (See In re James D. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 810, 813 , 172 Cal. Rptr. 321 .)

The victims, D.B. and J.B., are brothers. At the time of the…

Defendant molested a four-year-old and an eight-year-old over a period of about seven months in 2002 and early 2003. A jury convicted him of multiple counts of child molestation, and the trial court sentenced him to a total state prison term of 180 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior rape defendant committed; (2) a jury instruction on use of the prior rape evidence violated his due process rights; (3) the sentence *478 violated the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings on the facts supporting the consecutive sentences violated his jury trial and due process rights. We affirm.

FACTS

Defendant makes no contention that the evidence was insufficient, and, because we find no error, it is unnecessary to engage in a harmless error analysis. Therefore, we include only the most material facts, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (See In re James D. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 810, 813 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 321 ].)

The victims, D.B. and J.B., are brothers. At the time of the molestations, D.B. was eight years old…