People v. Soto CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 2/19/26 P. v. Soto 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E085168

v. (Super.Ct.No. INF1600632)

JOSE INOCENCIO SOTO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen J. Gallon, Judge.

Affirmed.

Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 In this Anders/Wende1 matter, defendant and appellant Jose Inocencio Soto appeals

from the trial court’s entry of judgment following a jury verdict convicting him of three

felony counts of sexually abusing his girlfriend’s daughter. The jury found defendant

committed aggravated oral copulation of a child younger than 14 years old (Pen. Code,2

§ 269, subd. (a)(4); count 1;), aggravated sexual penetration of a child under the age of 14

(§ 269, subd. (a)(5); count 2), and forcible lewd conduct against a child under age 14

(§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 3). The jury found two factors in aggravation true as to each

count: the victim was particularly vulnerable, and defendant took advantage of a position

of trust to commit the crimes. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3) & (a)(11).)

In December 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant, who was 56 years old at

the time, to concurrent indeterminate life terms on counts 1 and 2, with no parole

eligibility on either count for 15 years. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term

of 10 years on count 3, subject to a stay under section 654, and found defendant’s

presentence custody credits totaled 1,032 days. Our independent Anders and Wende

review on appeal discloses no issues of arguable merit on which to request briefing by the

parties. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue”

requires “a reasonable potential for success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the

judgment.

1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

2 All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 BACKGROUND

Jane Doe (Minor) was born in June 2003. In 2016, she and her mother, L.A.

(Mother), lived in an apartment in Coachella; Mother had recently begun dating

defendant.

Minor did not trust defendant and usually had a ride to school, but not on

February 19, 2016. Defendant spent the previous night at the apartment and agreed to

take Minor to school because Mother had to leave early for work. Minor testified

regarding how defendant abused her that morning, including that he approached her on

the couch where she was dressed and waiting to depart, he sat down next to her

unexpectedly, and she froze with fear as he first “squished” his hand “between his body

and [hers],” and subsequently engaged in forceful lewd acts that included digital

penetration and oral copulation. Minor did not answer Mother’s daily morning call to her

cellphone to wake her at 6:20 a.m., and Mother’s ensuing calls to Minor’s and

defendant’s phones went unanswered.

When Minor finally answered Mother’s call, Mother could tell from Minor’s tone

of voice that something was different. At some point, defendant returned to the room and

then drove Minor to her school. There, when a friend inquired why she was crying,

Minor told her she had been assaulted. Minor’s tears were uncontrollable. She gathered

herself for her physical education class, but was reluctant to change into her gym clothes,

fearing that others would be able to see she had been abused. At her friend’s urging,

Minor told the gym teacher that defendant had touched her inappropriately. The teacher

contacted the police, the school contacted Mother, a forensic interview was conducted,

3 and Minor underwent a sexual assault examination in which male DNA specimens were

recovered from her face, neck, and genital area.

Defendant ignored Mother’s telephone calls. Mother eventually confronted

defendant at a restaurant, but he denied any wrongdoing. Defendant disappeared,

declining a new work opportunity with his brother. Police investigators tried to reach

defendant through his brother, to no avail.

In 2023, investigators obtained a sample of defendant’s DNA. Defendant’s DNA

profile matched those recovered on swabs of Minor’s genital area and her face.

APPEAL AND REVIEW

Following the verdict, sentencing, and entry of judgment, defendant appealed.

This court appointed appellate counsel. Counsel’s review of the record and legal research

uncovered no arguable issues to raise on appeal, including after consultation with

Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching that conclusion, counsel noted several issues for

our potential reconsideration in our independent review: (1) did the trial court err when it

permitted one forensic nurse to testify regarding a forensic examination—including DNA

results—conducted by another nurse; (2) did the court err in failing to instruct on lesser

included offenses under the accusatory pleading test; (3) did the court err in overruling a

hearsay objections; and (4) if erroneous, did any of these ruling prejudice defendant?

Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied

defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no

arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra,

25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

4 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.