People v. Cervantes CA5

── People v. Cervantes CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Cervantes CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088790 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F17901543) v. GILBERT JAMES CERVANTES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G. Idiart, Judge. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, 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, Ian Whitney and Christina Hitomi Simpson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  Appellant Gilbert James Cervantes was found guilty by a jury of sodomy by force on a minor 14 years or older, lewd acts on a child under age 14, sodomy of a person under the age of 16, and four counts of lewd acts on a minor age 14 or 15. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Appellant now appeals, asserting: (I) insufficient evidence exists on the force element of the sodomy by force count; (II) insufficient evidence of penetration exists to support two counts of sodomy; (III) the trial court erred in failing to give a pinpoint instruction on penetration, and counsel was ineffective in failing to request one; (IV) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony on “child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome” (CSAAS), and the jury instruction on CSAAS improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility and violated appellant’s right to due process and a fair trial; and (V) cumulative error. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 2, 2023, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a first amended information charging appellant with one count of a lewd act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a), count 1);1 four counts of a lewd act on a minor age 14 or 15 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), counts 2, 3, 4, and 6); sodomy by use of force on a minor 14 years or older (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(C), count 5); and sodomy of a person under the age of 16 (§ 286, subd. (b)(2), count 7). The first amended information alleged two aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(11)2 [took advantage of position of trust] and (a)(3) [particularly vulnerable victim]). 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 All further undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court unless otherwise stated. 2.  On January 24, 2024, the jury found appellant guilty on all counts. After appellant waived a jury trial on circumstances in aggravation, the trial court found true that appellant took advantage of a position of trust but found not true that the victim was particularly vulnerable. On October 11, 2024, the court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 11 years, consisting of the middle term of nine years for count 5 and a consecutive two-year term (one-third the midterm) for count 1; appellant received concurrent two-year terms on the remaining counts. Appell