California v. Sanchez
Annotate this CaseDefendant Santiago Sanchez was convicted by jury of four sex offenses: one count of sexual penetration, one count of attempted sexual intercourse, and two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct. These acts were committed against an eight-year-old girl, D.C. He was convicted of two additional sex offenses: two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct, committed against D.C.'s ten-year-old sister, M.C. The jury also found defendant committed lewd or lascivious acts against more than one victim. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve 65 years to life in state prison and imposed other orders. Defendant appealed. After reviewing his arguments on appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's convictions and remanded the matter for resentencing. The Court found that while there was no direct evidence of the specific act of sexual penetration defendant was convicted of committing, other than his confession during interrogation, the circumstantial evidence was more than sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered evidence purportedly relevant to impeach S.S. or by allowing the challenged CSAAS testimony. Defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct is forfeited by his failure to object and request a curative instruction. Nor did defense counsel's failure to so object amount to constitutionally deficient performance. Defendant's assertion of cumulative prejudice also failed. With regard to resentencing, the Court concluded that the trial court's imposition of three consecutive life terms was not unauthorized, and therefore defense counsel's failure to object to this sentence below arguably forfeit the issue on appeal. However, "it is apparent from the record that the trial court believed it was required to impose full, separate, and consecutive terms pursuant to section 667.6, subdivision (d), and rule 4.426 of the California Rules of Court that were not applicable to this case. Assuming the issue is forfeited, we conclude defense counsel's failure to object and correct the trial court's misunderstanding amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.