Navarro

Defendant Antonio Rodriguez Navarro was convicted of several sex crimes against his daughter and stepdaughter. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial. We disagree. In a supplemental brief, defendant argues that the trial court could not impose consecutive sentences based on facts beyond those found true by the jury. In the published portion of this opinion, we determine that the facts in question were found true by the jury. We affirm.

FACTS

Patricia N. married defendant in 1992. Defendant’s daughter A was bom in 1992 and began living with Patricia and defendant when she was eight months old. Patricia’s daughters from a previous relationship, J and B, lived with their grandmother, but sometimes stayed with Patricia and defendant.

In 2002, B was referred to a social services counselor for Tulare County. B said she had been molested and she was worried about her younger sisters. The counselor told B that B needed to gather more information to determine if her sisters were in danger.

On February 1, 2002, B went to A’s school to talk to her. B told A’s teacher that she had been molested and she needed to talk to A to see if A had…