People v. Sheriff CA1/1

── People v. Sheriff CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 P. v. Sheriff CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168228 v. (Contra Costa County ISHMAEL WAREND SHERIFF, Super. Ct. No. 042200025) Defendant and Appellant. After a jury found Ishmael Warend Sheriff guilty of torture (Pen. Code,1 § 206) and attempted sexual penetration by means of force, violence, duress, menace, and fear (§§ 664, 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)), among other crimes, he was sentenced to seven years to life in prison for the torture conviction, consecutive to an aggregate determinate term of eight years and eight months, including one year for the attempted sexual penetration. In this appeal, he claims: (1) the torture conviction is unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the attempted sexual penetration conviction is likewise unsupported by substantial evidence; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Sheriff’s previous attack on the victim; (4) in light of the indeterminate sentence for torture, the consecutive sentence for attempted 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 sexual penetration is barred by section 654’s prohibition of punishing the same act under more than one provision; and (5) the trial court violated the Racial Justice Act (RJA; § 745) in its response to racial remarks made by the victim’s mother in a victim impact statement. Because Sheriff’s last claim is forfeited and his others lack merit, we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND Sheriff and the victim had dated for about three years before the events underlying this case. When those events transpired, the two were living together in an apartment in Antioch. The victim worked as an escort who provided sexual services for money. Sheriff would advise the victim on matters related to her work, reviewing her online advertisements and instructing her never to engage in unprotected sex. After a customer paid for sexual services, the victim would send the money to Sheriff. The two broke up for about three months and then reconciled at Sheriff’s insistence, with the victim moving back into the apartment and the previous financial arrangement resuming. One day, Sheriff choked the victim during an argument, leaving scratch marks on her neck. Two days later, Sheriff undertook a course of conduct by which he tortured and variously assaulted the victim for more than 24 hours. Early that morning, a man had arrived at the apartment and engaged in sexual activity with the victim in exchange for money. Sheriff had previously approved this transaction, but told the victim not to allow the man to “wander all around the house [or] go into the kitchen” or the bedroom. In order to make sure these instructions were followed, Sheriff placed a phone camera in the kitchen and recorded the interaction. After the man paid the victim and left the apartment, Sheriff returned and began to question the victim about various details of her encounter with the man. When Sheriff 2 accused the victim of lying, she suggested that he review the video from the phone camera. While they were watching the video, Sheriff began to assault the victim. The assault i