People v. Sainz CA2/3
B261986
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- On Feb. 15, 2014 appellant Jose Ricardo Sainz (neighbor) forcibly moved and pinned 18-year-old Alejandra against his apartment wall, kissed her, and digitally touched her vagina and anal area; she resisted and later reported the incident.
- Medical exam showed abrasions consistent with digital penetration but expert could not rule out consensual contact or older injuries.
- Appellant gave recorded statements admitting he grabbed and touched her, saying he stopped after she objected and apologized; he did not testify at trial.
- Indictment charged kidnapping (count 1) and forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object (counts 2 and 3); jury acquitted on the primary kidnapping and one penetration count but convicted on multiple lesser and greater offenses (including felony false imprisonment, forcible vaginal penetration, attempted forcible anal penetration, battery, assault).
- Trial court sentenced to 9 years (6 + 3, plus concurrent 2-year term); on appeal this court affirmed most convictions but reversed some, found multiple-punishment and instructional issues, vacated sentences, and remanded for resentencing and correction of convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony false imprisonment (count 1) | Evidence (victim resistance, being carried/pinned, appellant admissions) supports felony false imprisonment by violence/menace | Force was no greater than necessary to move her; insufficient for felony | Affirmed: force and menace supported felony false imprisonment |
| Duty to instruct on withdrawn consent (CALJIC 1.23.1) | No specific plaintiff argument — court properly instructed on lack of consent generally | Trial court should have given withdrawn-consent instruction sua sponte | No error: no substantial evidence of initial consent; if any, withdrawal was understood by defendant, and no prejudice |
| Mayberry (reasonable belief in consent) instruction for false imprisonment | Plaintiff argued no Mayberry defense warranted for false imprisonment | Appellant argued he reasonably believed she consented to touching/restraint | No error: Mayberry applies to belief in consent to restraint; no substantial evidence he believed she consented to being carried/confined |
| CALJIC No. 3.33 (intent immaterial) given to jury | Plaintiff relied on correctness of instructions overall | Appellant argued instruction inappropriate (for strict liability crimes) | Error conceded but harmless: convictions required general intent and other correct intent instructions were given |
| Multiple punishment under Penal Code § 654 (counts 1 & 2) | Prosecution maintained separate punishments proper | Appellant argued false imprisonment was incident to forcible penetration so § 654 bars multiple punishment | Reversed as to punishment on count 1 and remanded: sentence on felony false imprisonment stayed under § 654 because count 2 carried the longer term |
| Multiple lesser-included convictions (attempted felony false imprisonment, misdemeanor FI, assault) | Prosecution relied on jury verdicts | Appellant argued cannot be convicted of greater and lesser included offenses concurrently | Reversed and ordered strikes: attempted felony FI and misdemeanor FI (count 1) and assault (count 3) vacated as improper multiple convictions |
| Failure to instruct sua sponte on sexual battery as lesser included of forcible penetration (counts 2 & 3) | Plaintiff argued instructions were adequate | Appellant argued sexual battery was a reasonable lesser based on evidence of digital penetration | Mixed: count 2 conviction for forcible vaginal penetration affirmed (no prejudice); count 3 (attempted forcible anal penetration) reversed for instructional error and remanded — evidence there could support only sexual battery |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castro, 138 Cal.App.4th 137 (Cal. Ct. App.) (force beyond that necessary supports felony false imprisonment)
- People v. Islas, 210 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App.) (definition of menace)
- People v. Aispuro, 157 Cal.App.4th 1509 (Cal. Ct. App.) (menace and restraint analysis)
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1993) (context on resistance and fear supporting crimes against person)
- People v. Mayberry, 15 Cal.3d 143 (Cal. 1975) (Mayberry reasonable belief-in-consent doctrine)
- People v. Marshall, 15 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) (battery not a lesser included of attempted forcible rape/penetration)
- People v. Sloan, 42 Cal.4th 110 (Cal. 2007) (statutory-elements test for multiple convictions)
- People v. Smith, 57 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 2013) (accusatory pleading vs. statutory-elements analysis and when preliminary hearing matters)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (sua sponte instruction duty and Watson prejudice standard)
- People v. Ortega, 240 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. Ct. App.) (preliminary hearing evidence can require sua sponte instruction on sexual battery when prosecution limited to digital penetration)