People v. Cortez CA2/2

── People v. Cortez CA2/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Cortez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B338553 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA514279) DANIEL CORTEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Sophia A. Lecky, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________  A jury found defendant and appellant Daniel Cortez (Cortez) guilty of two counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code § 288.5, subd. (a))1 as to victims A.F. (count 1) and L.C. (count 9); four counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years old or younger as to L.C. (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 2, 3, 5 & 6); two counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger as to L.C. (§ 288.7, subd. (a); counts 4 & 7); and one count of a lewd act on a child under 14 years old as to L.C. (§ 288, subd. (a); count 8). The trial court sentenced Cortez to a total prison term of 26 years plus 50 years to life. On appeal, Cortez contends that (1) the trial court committed instructional error by (a) failing to instruct the jury that sexual penetration of a child is a specific intent crime and (b) instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1193 on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS); and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument and that defense counsel was constitutionally inadequate for failing to object. We affirm. FACTS Because Cortez does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, we only briefly summarize some of the evidence adduced at trial. (See People v. Curl (2009) 46 Cal.4th 339, 342, fn. 3.) Cortez is the paternal uncle of sisters A.F. and L.C. When A.F. was a child, Cortez began to insist that she “kiss him the right way” and showed her how to kiss him “tongue to tongue.” 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Cortez’s sexual abuse of A.F., which began when she was about 10 years old, escalated when she was 14 years old. One morning, Cortez entered A.F.’s bedroom, woke her up, and told her that they “were going to do something different this time.” Cortez pulled down A.F.’s pants, exposed his penis, and inserted his penis into her vagina. The sexual abuse continued throughout A.F.’s high school years. Cortez would enter the bathroom while A.F. was showering and have intercourse with her. Cortez would also molest A.F. in the back seat of her father’s tow truck. Cortez began molesting L.C. when she was around seven or eight years old. Cortez entered a bathroom occupied by L.C. and told her to kiss him. He exposed himself and instructed L.C. to perform oral sex on him. Cortez touched and placed his mouth on L.C.’s vagina. When L.C. was around nine or 10 years old, Cortez dem