People v. Boyer CA2/6

── People v. Boyer CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/19/26 P. v. Boyer CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B341650 (Super. Ct. No. CR28756) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. GARRY LEE BOYER, Defendant and Appellant. Garry Lee Boyer appeals after the trial court denied his petition to terminate his sex offender registration requirement. (Pen. Code, § 290.5.)1 He contends the trial court erred because there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that community safety would be significantly enhanced by his continued registration. He also contends that the denial of his petition violated due process. We affirm. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.  Factual and Procedural Background2 In May 1990, appellant met the victim, R.G., and her biological mother, Carolyn. At the time, appellant was 26 years old, and the victim was six years old. One year prior, when the victim was five years old, she was molested by her neighbor who later admitted to the molestation and pleaded guilty. Approximately one year after meeting Carolyn, appellant moved into the home she shared with the victim and the victim’s younger brother. In September 1991, the victim complained to her mother of painful urination. Carolyn took the victim to the doctor the following day. During an examination, the doctor found a cluster of lesions in the victim’s vagina, which was later determined to be herpes. When the doctor asked the victim if she had “‘ever been touched down there,’” the victim replied, “‘it’s a secret, I’ll get in trouble if I tell.’” The victim refused to discuss the matter further and the police were summoned. (Italics omitted.) While the victim and her mother waited for police to arrive, nurses overheard the victim tell her mother, “ ‘he said he would hurt me and would hurt you if I told. . . . He hurts me when he touches me with it, when he puts it on me.’ ” Another nurse heard the victim say, “ ‘I can’t tell you; he’ll kill me.’ ” The victim was very upset and started crying hysterically. (Italics omitted.) When police arrived, the victim disclosed that appellant had molested her repeatedly. She explained that when her mother was at school, appellant would tell her brother to go play outside, leaving appellant alone with the victim. She described 2 We summarize these facts from the prosecution’s opposition to appellant’s petition to terminate sex offender registration. 2 how appellant would remove her clothes, put his finger inside her vagina, and then put his penis inside her vagina. She would often cry out to him that it hurt, but appellant would continue despite her cries. Appellant also put his penis inside her mouth and inserted his tongue into her vagina. The victim underwent a medical exam. The results from that exam did not establish whether vaginal penetration occurred. Although the doctor found a small opening in the victim’s hymen, the doctor explained this could have been a normal anatomical variation. During a forensic interview, the victim was initially hesitant to describe the abuse. She eventually drew pictures of “ ‘Daddy putting his finger in her “part” (vagina); “daddy’s wiener” stating “he put it in my mouth” and would not take it out; “daddy putting his penis in her