People v. Coronado CA5

── People v. Coronado CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/17/26 P. v. Coronado CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F087776 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF085450-02) v. RICKIE SILGUERO CORONADO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan G. Leedy, Judge. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Dina Petrushenko and Charlotte Woodfork, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION Appellant Rickie Silguero Coronado was committed to the custody of the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) for an indeterminate term after a jury found he was a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.).1 On appeal, he argues the trial court (1) abused its discretion by admitting inadmissible and prejudicial evidence regarding his conduct while in DSH custody, (2) prejudicially erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on expert testimony that violated the court’s ruling on a motion in limine, and (3) prejudicially erred in excluding evidence that he would be required to register as a sex offender if released. He additionally argues he was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of these errors. We reject Coronado’s contentions and affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY “In 2004, Coronado was sentenced to 10 years in prison after pleading no contest to one count of sodomy by use of force (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (c)), and two counts of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)). In 2011, while Coronado was in custody, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a petition to commit Coronado as a sexually violent predator under the [Sexually Violent Predators Act]. “A jury trial on the petition commenced on November 16, 2015. At trial, the People sought to prove Coronado’s status as a [sexually violent predator] through the testimony of three of his victims, A.A., G.S., and M.C.2 The People also elicited expert testimony from [L.] Sidhu, Psy.D., and [E.] Simon, Ph.D. Coronado elicited expert 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. 2 “To protect the victims’ privacy, we refer to them by initials only. No disrespect is intended.” 2. testimony from [T.] Donaldson, Ph.D.” (People v. Coronado (Nov. 13, 2018, F072867) [nonpub. opn.] [as modified Dec. 6, 2018] (Coronado).) “On November 20, 2015, the jury returned a verdict finding Coronado qualified as a sexually violent predator as alleged in the petition. That same day, the trial court ordered Coronado committed to the DSH for an indeterminate term.” (Coronado, supra, F072867.) On appeal, we held Coronado was prejudiced by the court’s admission of inadmissible, case-specific hearsay introduced through Sidhu’s testimony in violation of People v.