People v. Saenz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068254 · 2016-03-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN331609
Trial judge: Harry M. Elias
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:54Z · confidence high

The trial court found the defendant guilty of oral copulation of an unconscious person and simple assault, sentenced him to three years in state prison, and denied probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding sufficient evidence of specific knowledge and no error in the jury instructions regarding voluntary intoxication.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sufficiency of evidence for specific knowledge that the victim was unconscious “We conclude this evidence, which was believed by the jury, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that defendant was aware the victim was sleeping”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court agree with court
Jury instruction CALCRIM No. 3426 limiting voluntary intoxication evidence “We find no error in the instruction.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no argument is presented.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende protocol for reviewing the record when counsel presents no argument. It correctly identifies the specific issues directed by counsel and applies the appropriate standards of review to affirm the judgment.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

A jury convicted Rodolfo Saenz of oral copulation of an unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (f)) and of simple assault as a lesser included offense of count 1; the trial court denied probation, imposed the low term of three years on count 2, dismissed count 1 on the People's motion, ordered section 290 registration and $1,620 in victim restitution. On a Wende appeal with no argument for reversal, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, rejected the two potential issues flagged by counsel (sufficiency of evidence of knowledge of unconsciousness and the scope of the CALCRIM No. 3426 voluntary intoxication instruction), and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sufficiency of the evidence that defendant knew the victim was unconscious when he committed oral copulation (count 2, Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (f)) “We conclude this evidence, which was believed by the jury, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that defendant was aware the victim was sleeping, and we reject his argument that he did not remember what happened.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The victim testified she went to bed, the act occurred on her bed at about 2:00 a.m., she awoke to find defendant orally copulating her, and he fled when she screamed; there was no evidence she was awake. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could infer defendant knew she was asleep, and his claimed lack of memory goes to credibility, which is for the jury.
Giving CALCRIM No. 3426, limiting consideration of voluntary intoxication to whether defendant acted with the intent to orally copulate an unconscious person or knew the victim was unconscious “We find no error in the instruction.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard but finds no error. The limitation tracks Penal Code section 29.4 (former § 22), which confines voluntary intoxication evidence to specific intent and the required mental state; the knowledge element of section 288a, subdivision (f) is exactly such a mental state, so the instruction gave defendant the benefit the statute allows. The court also notes the instruction was requested by defense counsel, which would ordinarily bar the claim under the invited error doctrine, though the opinion does not say so expressly.
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (Wende independent review) “Further review of the record discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying potential issues, defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and declined, and the court independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the recited sentence (low term, custody credits, registration, restitution) suggests an arguable error on this record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende procedure and reaches defensible conclusions on both flagged issues, with the sufficiency analysis grounded in specific record facts. The instructional discussion is cursory: it does not cite Penal Code section 29.4 or the invited error doctrine even though it notes defense counsel requested the instruction, and it states no standard of review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/18/16 P. v. Saenz CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D068254

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN331609)

RODOLFO SAENZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M.

Elias, Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting our court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In order to assist our review, he also directs our attention to two claims appearing in the record. We gave defendant and appellant Rodolfo Saenz an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has declined to do so. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged in count 1 with felonious assault during first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 220, subdivision (b). In count 2, he was charged with oral copulation of an unconscious person, in violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (f). A jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault on count 1 and rendered a guilty verdict on count 2.

The court denied probation, sentenced defendant to the low term of three years on count 2, and credited him with time served as to count 1. On motion of the People, the trial court then dismissed the lesser included offense, count 1. The court ordered defendant to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 and pay $1,620 in restitution to the victim. He received 30 days actual credit and 30 days in Penal Code section 4019 credits, for a total of 60 days in custody. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have independently reviewed the record and examined the issues to which we were directed by counsel. The first potential issue raised by counsel is whether there was sufficient evidence defendant had specific knowledge the victim was unconscious when he committed the act of oral copulation. We are satisfied sufficient evidence exists. The offense was committed at approximately 2:00 a.m. after the victim went to bed. The attack occurred on the victim's bed. She testified she awakened to find defendant engaged in the act of oral copulation. He ran when she screamed. There is no evidence the victim was awake during the assault. We conclude this evidence, which was believed by the jury, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that defendant was aware the 2 victim was sleeping, and we reject his argument that he did not remember what happened.

Counsel also asks us to consider whether it was appropriate to limit the existence, if any, of voluntary intoxication to whether the defendant acted with specific intent to commit oral copulation or had the mental state to commit that offense. CALCRIM No.

3426, which limited evidence of voluntary intoxication to whether defendant acted with the intent to orally copulate an unconscious person or knowledge that the person was not conscious of the nature of the act, was requested by counsel for defendant. We find no error in the instruction.

Further review of the record discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issue.

Defendant has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12