People v. Romo CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 22, 2015B254527California4,754 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Examined in light of the usual standard of review (see, e.g., People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715), the evidence established that Romo committed numerous sex acts upon Rocio R. over a period of years when she was between 8 and 11 years old. The acts occurred in the family home where Romo lived from 2003 to 2007, after he

1 All further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. 2 The jury also returned three guilty verdicts for lewd act on a child as charged in counts 13, 14, and 15. (§ 288, subd. (a).) Because counts 13, 14, and 15 were charged as “alternative” lesser included offenses to the three aggravated sexual assault counts charged in counts 1, 2 and 4, the trial court dismissed counts 13, 14, and 15 after the jury returned its verdicts on counts 1, 2 and 4. Accordingly, counts 13, 14, and 15 are not relevant to the current appeal except to the extent they are relevant as lesser included offenses.

2 married Rocio’s mother. During the time that Romo lived in the family home, Rocio called him “Dad,” and he exercised parental control over her. Rocio’s mother divorced Romo when Rocio was about 13 years old. Some years later, when Rocio was a senior…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.