People v. Morales-Orellana CA5
Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided
June 20, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
43%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
Filed 6/20/25 P. v. Morales-Orellana CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F087317 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F22904809) v. JOSE MORALES-ORELLANA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Kari Mueller and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION Defendant Jose Morales-Orellana lived in a two-bedroom apartment with several adults and children, including defendant’s two children, their mother E., another woman V., and V.’s son J. One evening while V. was gone, E. walked into the kitchen and saw J. on his knees orally copulating defendant. About three months later, E. reported what she had seen to her son’s school psychologist who, in turn, reported the incident to police. When interviewed by police, E. and J. gave generally similar statements about what had occurred, and defendant was arrested and charged. At trial, E. recanted certain statements she had made to the psychologist and to the police, indicating she had not actually witnessed anything happen between defendant and J. A jury ultimately convicted defendant of one count of forcible oral copulation of a child under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than defendant, and he was sentenced to the middle term of 10 years. (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (c)(1), (2)(B).1) On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred as a matter of state and federal law by precluding the defense from impeaching J. about a statement defendant overheard J. make to his mother regarding whether J. could take defendant’s United States citizenship and transfer it to himself. Although relevant to J.’s credibility as evidence of bias, we conclude the trial court did not err in precluding the defense from impeaching J. with that statement under Evidence Code section 352, and, thus, there was no confrontation clause violation under the federal Constitution. Defendant also argues the trial court erred in imposing the middle term at the sentencing hearing by failing to recognize mitigating circumstances had triggered the lower-term sentencing presumption under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). However, there was no factual basis to conclude the mitigating circumstances identified were “a contributing factor in the commission of the offense” necessary to trigger the lower-term 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2. sentencing presumption under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting and imposing the middle term. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At the time of the incident (Feb. 2022), defendant was living in a two-bedroom apartment with several others, including his partner E., their two children, another woman V. and her son, J., and V.’s brother. Defendant created a bedroom for V. and J. in the living room by dividing the room with plastic. According to E., defendant and V. got along without arguing, but neither defendant nor E. got along well with J., who was 12 years old at the time. E. wanted V. and J. to move out of the apartment, and she thought V. and defendant were engaged in a sexual relationship. E. testified that on February 13, 2022, she, defendant and their son were watching television in the living room; Jane, defendant’s daughter, was in one of the bedrooms; V. was gone; and J. was in the portion of the living room sectioned off as a bedroom. At some point, E. got up to go to the bathroom, but when she came back, about a minute later, she saw J. on his knees near a table several feet from the kitchen. She asked him why he was on the floor, but he did not answer her; he appeared scared. She turned on the kitchen lights and noticed de
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 20, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
Filed 6/20/25 P. v. Morales-Orellana CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE 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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, F087317 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F22904809) v.
JOSE MORALES-ORELLANA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T.
Fain, Judge. Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Kari Mueller and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION Defendant Jose Morales-Orellana lived in a two-bedroom apartment with several adults and children, including defendant’s two children, their mother E., another woman V., and V.’s son J. One evening while V. was gone, E. walked into the kitchen and saw J. on his knees orally copulating defendant. About three months later, E. reported what she had seen to her son’s school psychologist who, in turn, reported the incident to police. When interviewed by police, E. and J. gave generally similar statements about what had occurred, and defendant was arrested and charged. At trial, E. recanted certain statements she had made to the psychologist and to the police, indicating she had not actually witnessed anything happen between defendant and J. A jury ultimately convicted defendant of one count of forcible oral copulation of a child under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than defendant, and he was sentenced to the middle term of 10 years. (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (c)(1), (2)(B).1) On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred as a matter of state and federal law by precluding the defense from impeaching J. about a statement defendant overheard J. make to his mother regarding whether J. could take defendant’s United States citizenship and transfer it to himself. Although relevant to J.’s credibility as evidence of bias, we conclude the trial court did not err in precluding the defense from impeaching J. with that statement under Evidence Code section 352, and, thus, there was no confrontation clause violation under the federal Constitution. Defendant also argues the trial court erred in imposing the middle term at the sentencing hearing by failing to recognize mitigating circumstances had triggered the lower-term sentencing presumption under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). However, there was no factual basis to conclude the mitigating circumstances identified were “a contributing factor in the commission of the offense” necessary to trigger the lower-term
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2.
sentencing presumption under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting and imposing the middle term. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND At the time of the incident (Feb. 2022), defendant was living in a two-bedroom apartment with several others, including his partner E., their two children, another woman V. and her son, J., and V.’s brother. Defendant created a bedroom for V. and J. in the living room by dividing the room with plastic. According to E., defendant and V. got along without arguing, but neither defendant nor E. got along well with J., who was 12 years old at the time. E. wanted V. and J. to move out of the apartment, and she thought V. and defendant were engaged in a sexual relationship. E. testified that on February 13, 2022, she, defendant and their son were watching television in the living room; Jane, defendant’s daughter, was in one of the bedrooms; V. was gone; and J. was in the portion of the living room sectioned off as a bedroom. At some point, E. got up to go to the bathroom, but when she came back, about a minute later, she saw J. on his knees near a table several feet from the kitchen. She asked him why he was on the floor, but he did not answer her; he appeared scared. She turned on the kitchen lights and noticed de
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 20, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools