Filed 4/3/26 P. v. Barajas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, E085536 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIF2206196) v. OPINION GUILLERMO BARAJAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Randall S. Staman,
Judge. Affirmed.
Guillermo Barajas, in pro. per.; and Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Guillermo Barajas appeals his conviction following a jury trial. His attorney has
filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 informing this court they were unable to
identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the record. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Around eight to 10 years before November 2024, Barajas started dating L.A. L.A.
had two children already, including her daughter Jane Doe and an older son. Barajas
moved in with the family when Jane Doe was around eight years old. After moving in,
Barajas and L.A. had two children together. Jane Doe initially liked Barajas, but came to
dislike him and avoid him when she was home.
Starting when Jane Doe was around 14, Barajas came into Jane Doe’s room and
touched her vagina and buttocks three times. He always waited until night-time, several
hours after Jane Doe had gone to her room to sleep. The first time, Jane Doe was dressed
in leggings and Barajas rubbed her buttocks until she woke up. Another time, Barajas
came into Jane Doe’s room dressed in just boxers and a tank-top, pulled Jane Doe’s pants
and underwear down, and rested something warm on her buttocks. Jane Doe later
testified Barajas was resting his penis on her buttocks, but admitted that she did not see
his penis. Jane Doe leapt up and asked him what he was doing, and Barajas left without
saying anything. The last time, Jane Doe was sleeping in bed with her younger brother.
Barajas entered her room to move her younger brother into his own bed. As he was
2 grabbing Jane Doe’s brother, he rested his hand on Jane Doe’s vagina. Jane Doe was
fully clothed and under a blanket; she testified that the touching occurred over her
clothes, but was not clear whether it was over the blanket as well. He had his entire hand
on her vagina for a few seconds. This final incident happened when Jane Doe was 14,
which she could remember because it happened before she rearranged her room.
Barajas did not immediately report the incidents. When asked why, Jane Doe said
it was because she worried her mom would not believe her, worried about the effect it
would have on her younger siblings—Barajas’s children—and worried about her family’s
financial situation if Barajas was no longer contributing. At some point she told Barajas
she was going to tell her mom, but Barajas laughed and told her she was crazy. This
made her start questioning whether the incidents actually happened.
Jane Doe told her mother about the incidents the day before she turned 15. She
and her mother confronted Barajas the next day, and he denied everything. Jane Doe
claimed Barajas said “if I did do it, I’m sorry,” and L.A. recalled him saying sorry, but
not more. Barajas later denied saying sorry or otherwise implying any wrongdoing. L.A.
asked Jane Doe if she wanted to call the police, and Jane Doe declined. L.A. respected
Jane Doe’s wishes.
After the confrontation, Barajas refused to leave the family home for three to four
months. Even after moving out, he continued to come back to care for his two children
while L.A. worked. In October 2022, L.A. and Jane Doe called the police because they
claimed Barajas took the two youngest children, crashed into L.A.’s car, and drove away,
3 all while L.A. suspected him of being drunk. When officers arrived, Jane Doe decided to
also tell them about the incidents of abuse.
Jane Doe participated in a forensic interview. In the interview, she said the abuse
started when she was 12, “around COVID time.” The interviewer noted Jane Doe was
extremely angry at Barajas, and particularly upset that he continued to live in the home
after she told her mom about the inappropriate touching. Investigators also later
questioned her at school in order to nail down her exact ages when the abuse occurred.
Jane Doe’s descriptions of the abusive conduct were consistent throughout all her
interviews and statements to others.
In December 2023 the Riverside County District Attorney charged Barajas with
one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 (Pen. Code § 288,
subd. (a))1 (Count 1), one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child between
14 and 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)) (Count 2), one misdemeanor count of annoying and
molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (a)) (Count 3), and one misdemeanor count of sexual
battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1)) (Count 4). The prosecution also alleged two aggravating
factors: that Jane Doe was particularly vulnerable and that Barajas took advantage of a
position of trust.
At trial, L.A. testified that she received texts from Barajas concerning the case,
which investigators downloaded. In these texts Barajas told L.A. “[t]ell them whatever
you have to say. If you want to sink me, sink me,” and “[j]ust tell them that you drop off
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
4 the kids, that I don’t go to pick them up.” He also warned her “[t]hat’s why you got to
say what it is or else they are going to take the kids from us.” L.A. testified that these
communications were about their youngest children, and that he never directed her to
testify in a way that would make him look good.
In addition, the prosecution presented the testimony of an expert on Child Sexual
Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). She did not know the facts of the case, but
testified about CSAAS generally. Her testimony was offered to explain “that most sexual
abuse victims . . . don’t tell immediately.”
Barajas also testified on his own behalf. He denied all the allegations, denied ever
apologizing, and accused Jane Doe of lying because she was mad at him. He also denied
trying to instruct L.A. on how to testify.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, Barajas brought a motion under
section 1118.1 as to Counts 1, 3, and 4. The Court denied the motion.
The jury convicted Barajas on all counts. The court found the vulnerable victim
aggravating factor true, but did not find true that Barajas was in a position of trust. It
sentenced Barajas to an aggregate term of seven years eight months, composed of six
years for Count 1, eight months (one-third the midterm of two years) for Count 2, and
364 days on Count 3. The court imposed 180 days in county jail for Count 4, but stayed
that term under section 654. The court imposed a restitution fine of $300, stayed the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 4/3/26 P. v. Barajas CA4/2
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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, E085536 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIF2206196) v. OPINION GUILLERMO BARAJAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Randall S. Staman,
Judge. Affirmed.
Guillermo Barajas, in pro. per.; and Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Guillermo Barajas appeals his conviction following a jury trial. His attorney has
filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 informing this court they were unable to
identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the record. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Around eight to 10 years before November 2024, Barajas started dating L.A. L.A.
had two children already, including her daughter Jane Doe and an older son. Barajas
moved in with the family when Jane Doe was around eight years old. After moving in,
Barajas and L.A. had two children together. Jane Doe initially liked Barajas, but came to
dislike him and avoid him when she was home.
Starting when Jane Doe was around 14, Barajas came into Jane Doe’s room and
touched her vagina and buttocks three times. He always waited until night-time, several
hours after Jane Doe had gone to her room to sleep. The first time, Jane Doe was dressed
in leggings and Barajas rubbed her buttocks until she woke up. Another time, Barajas
came into Jane Doe’s room dressed in just boxers and a tank-top, pulled Jane Doe’s pants
and underwear down, and rested something warm on her buttocks. Jane Doe later
testified Barajas was resting his penis on her buttocks, but admitted that she did not see
his penis. Jane Doe leapt up and asked him what he was doing, and Barajas left without
saying anything. The last time, Jane Doe was sleeping in bed with her younger brother.
Barajas entered her room to move her younger brother into his own bed. As he was
2 grabbing Jane Doe’s brother, he rested his hand on Jane Doe’s vagina. Jane Doe was
fully clothed and under a blanket; she testified that the touching occurred over her
clothes, but was not clear whether it was over the blanket as well. He had his entire hand
on her vagina for a few seconds. This final incident happened when Jane Doe was 14,
which she could remember because it happened before she rearranged her room.
Barajas did not immediately report the incidents. When asked why, Jane Doe said
it was because she worried her mom would not believe her, worried about the effect it
would have on her younger siblings—Barajas’s children—and worried about her family’s
financial situation if Barajas was no longer contributing. At some point she told Barajas
she was going to tell her mom, but Barajas laughed and told her she was crazy. This
made her start questioning whether the incidents actually happened.
Jane Doe told her mother about the incidents the day before she turned 15. She
and her mother confronted Barajas the next day, and he denied everything. Jane Doe
claimed Barajas said “if I did do it, I’m sorry,” and L.A. recalled him saying sorry, but
not more. Barajas later denied saying sorry or otherwise implying any wrongdoing. L.A.
asked Jane Doe if she wanted to call the police, and Jane Doe declined. L.A. respected
Jane Doe’s wishes.
After the confrontation, Barajas refused to leave the family home for three to four
months. Even after moving out, he continued to come back to care for his two children
while L.A. worked. In October 2022, L.A. and Jane Doe called the police because they
claimed Barajas took the two youngest children, crashed into L.A.’s car, and drove away,
3 all while L.A. suspected him of being drunk. When officers arrived, Jane Doe decided to
also tell them about the incidents of abuse.
Jane Doe participated in a forensic interview. In the interview, she said the abuse
started when she was 12, “around COVID time.” The interviewer noted Jane Doe was
extremely angry at Barajas, and particularly upset that he continued to live in the home
after she told her mom about the inappropriate touching. Investigators also later
questioned her at school in order to nail down her exact ages when the abuse occurred.
Jane Doe’s descriptions of the abusive conduct were consistent throughout all her
interviews and statements to others.
In December 2023 the Riverside County District Attorney charged Barajas with
one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under 14 (Pen. Code § 288,
subd. (a))1 (Count 1), one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child between
14 and 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)) (Count 2), one misdemeanor count of annoying and
molesting a child (§ 647.6, subd. (a)) (Count 3), and one misdemeanor count of sexual
battery (§ 243.4, subd. (e)(1)) (Count 4). The prosecution also alleged two aggravating
factors: that Jane Doe was particularly vulnerable and that Barajas took advantage of a
position of trust.
At trial, L.A. testified that she received texts from Barajas concerning the case,
which investigators downloaded. In these texts Barajas told L.A. “[t]ell them whatever
you have to say. If you want to sink me, sink me,” and “[j]ust tell them that you drop off
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
4 the kids, that I don’t go to pick them up.” He also warned her “[t]hat’s why you got to
say what it is or else they are going to take the kids from us.” L.A. testified that these
communications were about their youngest children, and that he never directed her to
testify in a way that would make him look good.
In addition, the prosecution presented the testimony of an expert on Child Sexual
Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). She did not know the facts of the case, but
testified about CSAAS generally. Her testimony was offered to explain “that most sexual
abuse victims . . . don’t tell immediately.”
Barajas also testified on his own behalf. He denied all the allegations, denied ever
apologizing, and accused Jane Doe of lying because she was mad at him. He also denied
trying to instruct L.A. on how to testify.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, Barajas brought a motion under
section 1118.1 as to Counts 1, 3, and 4. The Court denied the motion.
The jury convicted Barajas on all counts. The court found the vulnerable victim
aggravating factor true, but did not find true that Barajas was in a position of trust. It
sentenced Barajas to an aggregate term of seven years eight months, composed of six
years for Count 1, eight months (one-third the midterm of two years) for Count 2, and
364 days on Count 3. The court imposed 180 days in county jail for Count 4, but stayed
that term under section 654. The court imposed a restitution fine of $300, stayed the
parole revocation fine, and found under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157
(Dueñas) that Barajas lacked the ability to pay any further fines or fees.
5 DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Barajas on appeal, and counsel filed a brief
setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct
an independent review of the record. Counsel’s brief directed our attention to just one
potential issue: whether the court erred in imposing a restitution fine despite waiving all
other fines and fees under Dueñas. We offered Barajas an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief. He did so, generally alleging that he was not effectively assisted by
counsel and “was denied a fair opportunity to understand the proceedings and to defend
[him]self in a meaningful way.” However, Barajas’s supplemental brief points to no
specific errors—either by his counsel or by the trial court—which he contends denied
him a fair trial or the ability to defend himself. (See People v. Cardenas (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 240, 248 [“broad and conclusory assertions of prejudice are not enough;
appellant must develop an argument that specifically substantiates his claim”].) Nor can
we identify any.
Having independently reviewed the record for potential error and finding no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Barajas, we affirm the
judgment.
6 DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL J. We concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
LEE J.