Filed 12/28/21 P. v. Saucedo-Zepeda CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160101 v. ENRIQUE SAUCEDO-ZEPEDA, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN230061) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Enrique Saucedo-Zepeda appeals after a jury found him guilty of two counts of rape. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (2) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) insufficient evidence supported the verdicts; and (4) multiple errors caused cumulative prejudice. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with rape of a person who was unconscious or asleep (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(4)(A),1 count I), and rape of a person who was prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or controlled substance (§ 261, subd. (a)(3), count II), both occurring on or about May 20, 2014. A jury convicted defendant of both counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison on count I 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. and, pursuant to section 654, imposed but stayed a three-year term on count II. The following is a brief summary of some of the trial evidence. The victim, W.V., testified that in May 2014, she attended a party at defendant’s home with her then-boyfriend, E.Y.2 The victim is four feet 10 inches tall, and at the time weighed about 125 pounds. She arrived at the party around noon, and by 4:00 p.m. she had consumed four to five beers and two shots of tequila, and started to feel sleepy. She told E.Y., who obtained defendant’s permission for her to lie down in his room. The victim and E.Y. went to defendant’s room, where E.Y.’s cousin was asleep on another bed. The victim fell asleep fully clothed. The victim awoke when she felt she was being penetrated, and she knew it was not E.Y. She opened her eyes and said “no,” to which defendant responded by pulling his penis out of her, pulling up his pants, and leaving. She did not see him remove a condom and did not think he wore one. After defendant pulled out, her vagina felt wet, like he had ejaculated. The victim pulled up her clothes and, shortly thereafter, E.Y. entered the room and she asked him to get her out of there. The victim testified she cried and was in disbelief after the incident, but did not immediately tell E.Y. what happened because she was embarrassed and scared that he may have had some role in it. Around 2:00 a.m., she heard E.Y. receive a call from defendant asking why they had …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals