People v. Ruelas CA2/6

── People v. Ruelas CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Ruelas CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B339030 (Super. Ct. No. 2020007916) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. EDGAR RODRIGUEZ RUELAS, Defendant and Appellant. Edgar Rodriguez Ruelas appeals his conviction, by jury, of assault with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, or oral copulation against a person under 18 years of age (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(2), (count 1))1; two counts of assault with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, or oral copulation (§ 220, subd. (a)(2)), (counts 2 and 4)); genital penetration with a foreign object (§§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), 667.61, subd. (d)(4), (count 3)); and assault All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1 otherwise stated. with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, or oral copulation during the course of a burglary. (§ 220, subd. (b), (count 5).) With respect to counts 1, 2 and 4, the jury found true aggravating circumstances that the victims were vulnerable, the crimes involved planning, sophistication, or professionalism, and that appellant engaged in conduct indicating he was a serious danger to society. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8).) It found untrue the allegation that these offenses involved a high degree of cruelty, viciousness or callousness. (Id., rule 4.421(b)(1).) The trial court sentenced appellant to a total term in prison of 21 years plus 32 years to life. Appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged acts he committed and pornography he accessed. He contends the admission of this evidence violated Evidence Code sections 352, 1101 and 1108 as well as his right to due process of law. We affirm. Facts Appellant assaulted five different women, all of whom were strangers to him. Three of these assaults occurred on Ventura County hiking trails, two in early morning hours and one in the late afternoon, while each victim was hiking alone. The other two assaults occurred inside apartments at night. One victim was sleeping in her own bed, the other in her boyfriend’s. At trial, appellant admitted that he was the person who committed these assaults, but denied any intent to rape the victims. Instead, his counsel argued that appellant “has an underwear fetish, which became an underwear obsession, which got out of his control and it led to him grabbing people and going into homes, but not to commit rape.” 2  The Charged Offenses. Appellant was married to A.S. from 2006 to 2018. During their marriage, appellant often went hiking alone, usually late at night or very early in the morning. He would wear a sweatsuit, e.g., matching black sweatpants and a sweatshirt, and a ski mask that covered his face. Appellant sometimes wore a beanie and neck warmer or gaiter that could be pulled up to cover his face. Count 1. In March 2020, then 16-year-old Y.C. went for a hike in Oak Park at about 3:30 p.m. She took her ukulele, a book, a notebook and her cell phone. Y.C. walked to a clearing where there was a tree with a swing. Along the way, she heard some rustling in the bushes. After reaching her destination, Y.C. heard the rustling again. About 5 minutes later, she decided to walk back home. As she was walking,