People v. Mauricio CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082816 · 2024-07-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD287305
Trial judge: David M. Gill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:08Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted the defendant of multiple counts of child sexual abuse and sentenced him to 30 years to life plus 12 years and 8 months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Admission of expert testimony regarding myths and misconceptions of child sexual abuse “Whether the court properly allowed an expert to testify at trial about the common myths and misconceptions surrounding child sexual abuse”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue raised by counsel but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal after independent review, without providing specific legal analysis or applying a standard of review to this specific ruling.
Jury instruction on the complaining witness “Whether the court properly instructed the jury on the complaining witness”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but did not analyze it or state a conclusion, relying instead on the general finding of no arguable errors.
Sufficiency of evidence for lewd act conviction based on imputed touching (use of sex toy) “Whether the evidence supported the conviction of lewd act on a child for the use of a sex toy based on the theory of imputed or constructive touching”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but did not provide a specific analysis or holding, concluding generally that no arguable issues for reversal were found.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists specific potential issues raised by counsel but fails to provide any specific legal analysis or reasoning for why those issues were not arguable, relying solely on a general statement that no errors were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

A San Diego jury convicted Mauricio of two counts of oral copulation/sexual penetration of a child under 10, six counts of lewd acts on a child, and one count of sending harmful matter to seduce a minor, and the trial court sentenced him to 30 years to life plus 12 years 8 months. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying three possible issues, Mauricio filed a supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Admission of expert testimony on common myths and misconceptions about child sexual abuse (CSAAS-type testimony) “That expert, however, did not interview any witnesses in this case or offer an opinion as to whether the victim was testifying truthfully.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard or analyze the issue, but notes facts that fit the settled rule that such expert testimony is admissible to rehabilitate a child witness's credibility against myths so long as the expert does not opine on the particular victim's truthfulness. The limited facts recited are consistent with proper admission, but the opinion provides no analysis to verify.
Jury instruction regarding the complaining witness “(2) Whether the court properly instructed the jury on the complaining witness”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as a potential issue flagged by counsel under Anders but gives no description of the instruction given or any reasoning. With no record detail, there is no basis to find error, but also no basis to independently confirm the court's conclusion.
Sufficiency of the evidence for a lewd-act conviction based on use of a sex toy under a theory of imputed or constructive touching “(3) Whether the evidence supported the conviction of lewd act on a child for the use of a sex toy based on the theory of imputed or constructive touching.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 288 does not require skin-to-skin contact and California law recognizes constructive touching; the opinion recites that Mauricio touched the victim's vagina while using a vibrator, which would satisfy the touching element. The court's conclusion appears correct on the facts stated, though it offers no analysis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal's opinion should set out the facts and procedural history, the issues counsel identified, and, where the defendant files a supplemental brief, describe and address the contentions raised in that brief; this opinion states only that the supplemental brief raises no meritorious issue without identifying its contentions.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, listed counsel's three potential issues, and independently reviewed the record, and nothing in the recited facts suggests arguable error on those issues. However, the opinion does not describe or specifically address the contentions in Mauricio's supplemental brief as People v. Kelly directs, and it provides no analysis or standards for the three issues identified, leaving its conclusions unverifiable from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/24/24 P. v. Mauricio CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082816

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD287305)

OSWALDO RUIZ MAURICIO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. Oswaldo Ruiz Mauricio, in pro. per.; and Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Oswaldo Ruiz Mauricio of two counts of oral copulation/sexual penetration of a child younger than 10 years old (Pen.

Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1 and 2); six counts of committing a lewd act 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 3 through 8); and one count of sending harmful material with the intent to seduce a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a); count 9). The court sentenced Mauricio to prison for 30 years to life plus 12 years eight months. Mauricio timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Mauricio he could file is own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief. Mauricio’s submission does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 Mauricio sexually abused his stepdaughter, beginning when she was about five or six years old. Over the course of several years, Mauricio committed various lewd acts involving his stepdaughter. On one occasion, Mauricio touched his stepdaughter’s vagina while using a vibrator. During trial, among several other witnesses, the prosecutor offered an expert witness who testified about myths and misconceptions involving child sexual abuse. That expert, however, did not interview any witnesses in this case or offer an opinion as to whether the victim was testifying truthfully.

2 A robust discussion of the facts adduced at trial is unnecessary for this opinion. However, we briefly provide a few salient facts for context. 2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: (1) Whether the court properly allowed an expert to testify at trial about the common myths and misconceptions surrounding child sexual abuse; (2) Whether the court properly instructed the jury on the complaining witness; and (3) Whether the evidence supported the conviction of lewd act on a child for the use of a sex toy based on the theory of imputed or constructive touching. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Mauricio on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12