The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence does not support appellant’s conviction of rape of a child (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(1)), specifically because there was insufficient evidence of sexual penetration. The Court further held that the trial court committed legal error by awarding restitution for noneconomic losses caused by appellant’s Penal Code section 311.11 conviction (possession of child pornography), although section 311 falls outside the noneconomic restitution provisions of Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(F).
^