NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MANELLA, J.

INTRODUCTION

Anthony Ray Crawford appeals from a judgment of conviction for forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object. He contends his convictions should be reversed because evidence about his victim's mental history was not introduced at the trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

An information charged Crawford with three counts of forcible rape (counts 2, 6 & 10; Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)),1 five counts of forcible oral copulation (counts 1, 3, 4, 7 & 8; § 288a, subd. (c)(2)), and two counts of forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object (counts 5 & 9; § 289, subd. (a)(1)). As to all counts, it was alleged that Crawford used a knife (§§ 667.61, subd. (b), 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.3, 12202.3, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that Crawford had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had a prior "strike" (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Crawford pled not guilty and denied the allegations.

Prior to trial, the prosecutor noted that at the preliminary hearing there had been some "questioning . . . about the victim's mental health[,] whether she took medication." The prosecutor then moved to exclude "reference to [the victim's] depression and/or bipolar and medication." The trial court asked defense counsel whether he was "[g]oing to bring [into the trial] depression, bipolar, and meds." Defense counsel stated, "I don't think I would be bringing that in. That's not the issue." At trial, the defense case was based upon the victim's consent to sex.

A jury found Crawford guilty on all counts as charged, and found the knife-use enhancements to be true. In a bifurcated trial, the court found the prior convictions to be true. Crawford was sentenced to state prison for 150 years to life, consisting of consecutive terms of 15 years to life as to each count. Sentence on the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement was stayed. Crawford timely filed an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Lina F., who was 65 years old when she testified at Crawford's trial, lived in a one-bedroom studio apartment in the City of Long Beach. She had seen Crawford pass by her building on several occasions and once saw him talking to the building manager, Florence Austin. One day toward the end of June 2009, Lina was walking her dog when she met and had a conversation with Crawford. She learned he was homeless.

Later, Lina met Crawford again and gave him her telephone number. Crawford then called Lina and asked if he could come over to her place. Lina agreed, and Crawford came over and they talked for 30 to 45 minutes. They spoke about going out to get ice cream, and Crawford told Lina how he was looking for a place to live. Crawford was the first person to bring up the idea of going out together for ice cream. Lina told him they could go out and have ice cream and talk, but she had no interest in any kind of "love relationship."

The next time Lina saw Crawford, they went in her car to a store to get ice cream. After getting ice cream, they went to her apartment and talked. Crawford said he was looking for a place to live. He had been staying at a park next to a police station, but the police evicted everyone from the park when some of the inhabitants were caught smoking marijuana. Lina offered to let Crawford stay in her apartment and sleep on the floor. He accepted, and Lina gave him a key to her apartment.

Lina told Austin that Crawford was going to stay with her. Austin said Crawford was "okay" and a "good guy." Austin testified she knew Crawford was homeless and she had seen him around for some months. Austin also testified that after she found out Lina was helping Crawford, she spoke with Crawford. She told him that he seemed like a nice guy and not to abuse or hurt Lina. Crawford said okay.

Lina testified she had one ground rule that Crawford had to follow to stay at her place: he could not sit on her bed at any time. He agreed. Lina also testified she never had any physical contact with Crawford except for one time when she gave him a head massage after he had shaved his head.

Crawford had told Lina that he would be out of her home by 6:00 a.m. and would be back from work after 8:00 p.m. each day. However, after about a week and a half, he started returning to the apartment earlier, sometimes at 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., or 2:00 p.m. On July 23, Lina told Crawford he had to find another place to live. He agreed, and Lina said he could stay one more night. Crawford agreed to leave and come back that night at 9:00 p.m.

Crawford returned to Lina's apartment that night, between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. Lina was in bed watching television. She was dressed in a long skirt and top; she did not change into her nightwear because she did not want to be provocative in any way around Crawford. Crawford sat down in a nearby chair and they chatted for a few minutes. Without warning, he walked to the bed, leaned over to pet the dog, and then jumped on top of Lina. He was wielding a knife. Lina was unsure where the knife came from. She told Crawford, "Anthony, you really don't want to do this." Crawford placed the knife against Lina's chest. She tried to scream but was only able to make a moaning or whimpering sound. Crawford said, "Shut up bitch. I have been to jail before and I don't mind going again." The knife went through the skin and left marks on her neck.

Crawford told Lina to take off her underwear, but she told him she was not wearing any. Crawford took off his clothes. He pushed Lina down and made her suck his penis. He told Lina to tell him how good it tasted. Because Lina could not see a way out of the situation, she cooperated and said "Yes, Anthony, it is so wonderful. It taste[s] so good." Lina testified that Crawford then made her orally copulate him three to four times, inserted his fingers in her vagina three to four times, put his mouth on her vagina at least three times, and inserted his penis in her vagina at least three times. During the assault, Crawford said, "Oh, this is great. I'm the best you ever had. Aren't I the best Lina. Aren't I the best. Tell me I am the best." Despite the pain she was experiencing, she complied, "[b]ecause that's what he wanted me to say." After Crawford ejaculated, he rolled off the bed and passed out.

Still in pain and traumatized, it took Lina several minutes to calm down. Although she had seen Crawford put the knife on the windowsill toward the end of the assault, she did not look for the knife on the windowsill because she was distraught. Instead, she looked for the knife by creeping around and checking the floor by the bed, the wall behind the bed, the mattress, Crawford's belongings, and all around the apartment. During this search, she located a hammer on the top of the refrigerator, which she grabbed. She then tried to get her dog to come out from under the bed, but had trouble doing so because the dog was terrified. Lina started to change clothes and vomited into her skirt. She left the soiled skirt in the apartment. After some difficulty, she was able to exit the apartment with the hammer and her dog.

Lina went to her car and drove around for a few hours. She did not call the police because she was afraid they would have a negative reaction and not believe her. She knew other women who had been raped and had not been believed. Lina testified she drove to a local convenience store, and then back to her apartment building. When Lina got back to the building, she parked a short distance away and waited in her car for her friend and next-door neighbor, Victoria, to come home from work. When Victoria came home, Lina told her what had happened. Victoria called Austin from a cell phone, and Austin came outside.

Austin testified that when she saw her, Lina was shaking, hysterical, and in a daze. Austin had known Lina for three to four years, and had never seen her in that condition. Lina told Austin that Crawford had held a knife to her neck and raped her. Lina said Crawford had "one of the biggest[] I ever seen," and that she was scared and thought Crawford had her keys. Because Lina was too scared to go back into the apartment, Austin took her mace and taser gun and went into the apartment. Crawford was gone.

Austin told Lina to call the police. Lina testified she called 911 and spoke with a male operator who made her feel unsafe and "confirmed my reasoning for not wanting to call the police in the first place."2 Six police officers arrived to respond to the call. Lina and Austin overheard the officers whispering in the hallway that Lina was probably a prostitute or mentally ill. Austin thought the police treated Lina like "crap" and did not take her seriously. Lina felt that it was a "big mistake" to call the officers. She was too confused to answer the officers' questions about whether she wanted to go to the hospital or file a report. When she asked for suggestions as to what she should do, the officers said they did not give advice. Lina asked one of the officers what he would do if it had been his wife who had been raped, and he said that his wife would not be in her situation. The answer made Lina feel "awful" and "terrible." The police left without taking a report.

Austin called Lina's daughter, Natasha Garcia, and told her that her mother had been sexually assaulted. Garcia called Lina, and then came over to pick her up. Garcia and Lina then experienced several frustrating incidents as they attempted to file a police report and get a rape or sexual assault examination for Lina. Eventually, they were able to file a police report and Lina was taken to the local community hospital for a sexual assault examination.

Robin Shaw, a registered and forensic nurse, performed the sexual assault examination. She first took an oral history from Lina who gave a detailed account of the assault, which was consistent with Lina's trial testimony. Lina reported that she was experiencing pain in her neck and throat as well as burning on urination, and a feeling that she had been cut. She had vomited twice since the assault.

Nurse Shaw also did a physical examination of Lina. Based upon that examination, Nurse Shaw opined that Lina had injuries consistent with having had a knife placed on her neck. Nurse Shaw also opined that Lina had injuries to her body, including to her mouth and genital area, that were consistent with forceful consensual sex or forceful sexual assault.

Officers recovered the soiled skirt in Lina's apartment; the vomit on the skirt was still fresh. The knife Lina identified as being used in the attack was found in the kitchen sink.

Crawford was arrested two days later. He did not testify at trial.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Crawford contends his convictions should be reversed because the trial court erred in granting the prosecution's pretrial motion to exclude evidence that Lina had a history of bipolar depression and was taking medication. According to Crawford, evidence about Lina's mental health history should have been allowed at trial because that evidence "bore directly" on Lina's credibility. We disagree.

As an initial matter, Crawford has forfeited this claim as his trial counsel failed to raise an objection to the prosecutor's motion to exclude evidence about the victim's mental health history. (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 194.) Indeed, his trial counsel stated that he would not be introducing any evidence about Lina's mental health or medication as it was not the issue in the case. Crawford contends this was error on the part of his trial counsel. We disagree that Crawford's trial counsel was ineffective.

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Crawford must show: (1) that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688; People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 206-207; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 519-520.) When "defense counsel's reasons for conducting the defense case in a particular way are not readily apparent from the record, we will not assume inadequacy of representation unless there could have been `"no conceivable tactical purpose' for counsel's actions."'" (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 896.)

Crawford cannot demonstrate that his trial counsel's decision not to delve into Lina's mental health history was not a rational tactical one. First, as counsel's comment ("that's not the issue") suggested, the evidence appears to have been irrelevant. While mental illness may affect a witness's perception and recall, there was no evidence that Lina's perception or recall of the sexual assault was affected by mental health issues. Indeed, the defense was not that Lina imagined the assault, but that the sexual encounter was consensual. The record provides no basis for concluding that Lina suffered from a condition that would cause her to confuse a forcible sexual assault with a consensual encounter. Second, apart from the lack of probative value, trial counsel may well have concluded that the jury would only be more sympathetic to Lina if it learned of her history of mental illness.

Nor can Crawford show prejudice. Even had trial counsel objected to the prosecution's motion, for the reasons stated above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to exclude evidence of Lina's mental health. Moreover, it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a different verdict if it had heard about Lina's mental health issues. Her trial testimony was amply supported by other evidence, including Austin's testimony about Lina's demeanor, the knife and soiled skirt found in the apartment, and the results of the sexual assault examination which showed forceful sexual encounters. Accordingly, Crawford cannot show he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

EPSTEIN, P. J. and WILLHITE, J., concurs.