The People of California v. Pedro Alexxander Aviles

Monterey, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with sexual abuse of a child.



In January 2023, police in Tulare County investigated a report of sexual abuse made by a 10-year-old girl, Jane Doe. Doe told the police that Aviles began sexually abusing her when she was six years old, and the last incident of sexual abuse occurred in King City (Monterey County) in November 2022. During a forensic interview, Doe provided details about the abuse. In April 2023, King City police officers arrested Aviles. He denied inappropriately touching Doe.



In June 2023, the Monterey County District Attorney filed an information charging Aviles with 10 offenses: sexual intercourse/sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code,[3] § 288.7, subd. (a); counts 1, 5 &6), oral copulation/sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 2, 3, 7 &8), and lewd or lascivious act with a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 4, 9 &10). As to count 3, the information alleged substantial sexual contact (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and, as to counts 1-3, the information alleged the following aggravating factors: cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (Cal. Rules of Court,[4] rule 4.421(a)(1)), particularly vulnerable victim (rule 4.421(a)(3)), and advantage of a position of trust (rule 4.421(a)(11)).



On May 29, 2024, on the district attorney's motion, the trial court amended count 1 to allege a forcible lewd or lascivious act with a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)). Pursuant to a written plea agreement,



3



Aviles pleaded no contest to two counts (i.e., amended count 1 &count 9) and admitted two aggravating factors (rule 4.421(a)(1) &(11)) in exchange for a prison sentence between five and 18 years to be determined by the court and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. Aviles agreed to a factual basis for his pleas as described in the plea agreement, preliminary hearing transcript, and police reports. Aviles waived all trial rights and all rights regarding state and federal writs and appeals. Aviles "specifically agree[d] to waive any right to appeal the sentence negotiated in this case." The court advised Aviles that his pleas to counts 1 and 9 constitute two strikes under the Three Strikes law, and of the other consequences of his pleas.



On October 9, 2024, Aviles's defense counsel filed a sentencing memorandum requesting the minimum sentence of five years in prison. In support of a mitigated term of incarceration, counsel submitted a defense report describing Aviles's social history and background, some defense investigation reports, Aviles's school records, and a confidential psychological evaluation by Dr. Carolyn Murphy. Counsel noted Aviles's lack of significant criminal record, his efforts to provide for his family, and his history of meaningful employment. Counsel asserted that Aviles "does not present a recidivist danger to the public and that lengthy incarceration is not necessary to protect the victim or the public." Counsel also asserted the existence of several circumstances in mitigation (rule 4.423(a)(3), (b)(1)-(3), (c)).



* * *



Legal issue Can an appellant successfully contest a sentencing decision after pleading no contest in a criminal case?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. SEXUAL OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN. The case involves the defendant's appeal following a conviction by plea for offenses including sexual intercourse and lewd acts with a minor, focusing on the sufficiency of the sentence and the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PLEA AGREEMENTS. The issue concerns the defendant's waiver of trial and appeal rights under a plea agreement that resulted in a no-contest plea to reduced charges and the imposition of a substantial prison sentence.



APPELLATE REVIEW. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF RECORD. The appeal was reviewed under the Wende standard requiring an independent examination of the record by the appellate court to identify any arguable issues that might benefit the defendant.



SENTENCING LAW. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS. The trial court considered aggravating and mitigating factors under California sentencing statutes and rules, ultimately finding the aggravating factors justified a sentence higher than the middle term.

Key Phrases Conviction by plea. Sexual abuse report. Mitigating circumstances. Aggravating factors. Criminal protective order.

Affirmed