People v. Solis, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 450

Defendant was convicted by a jury of three forcible rape counts and one count of receiving stolen property; he received full consecutive terms on the rape counts.
Victim Jenna B. and defendant were in a dating relationship for much of 2008; defendant helped move out the victim and later gave her a stolen purse and sold a stolen laptop.
On October 19–20, 2008, defendant allegedly assaulted the victim, culminating in multiple rapes and related acts of violence.
Defense challenged the admission of evidence of prior uncharged acts of violence; no objected contemporaneously to the challenged evidence.
The trial court sentenced on the rape counts to the middle term each and on the stolen property count to the middle term, all to run consecutively; the court impliedly found the rapes occurred on separate occasions.
On appeal, the court remanded for resentencing on the remaining count after concluding the third rape did not occur on a separate occasion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether uncharged-acts evidence was ineffective assistance not objected to	Defendant argues counsel failed to object.	Counsel’s failure to object violated the standard for effectiveness.	No reversible error; the issue is subsumed by the vagueness ruling.
Vagueness of the separate-occasions standard under §667.6(d)	The standard is vague and violates due process; an ineffective-assistance claim may follow.	The standard is sufficiently definite to satisfy due process.	Not unconstitutionally vague; the standard is workable and consistent with precedent.
Right to jury trial on whether rapes occurred on separate occasions	Defendant contends he was denied jury determination on separateness.	No jury trial right created by the statute for this factual issue.	Issues resolved through standard review; no separate jury-right violation.
Sufficiency of evidence or instruction on sexual intercourse definition	Evidence sufficiency or instruction deficiency for rape definition.	No insufficiency and instruction adequate.	Convictions affirmed; however, remand for resentencing on count 5.
Whether trial court provided adequate reasons for full consecutive sentences and whether rapes occurred on separate occasions	The court must articulate reasons and prove separate occasions.	Court’s reasoning acceptable and findings supported.	Remand for resentencing on count 5; third rape not shown to be a separate occasion, requiring adjustment.

Corona v. State, 206 Cal.App.3d 13 (Cal. App. 1989) (discusses separate occasions in overlapping sex acts and timing gaps)
Pena v. State, 7 Cal.App.4th 1294 (Cal. App. 1992) (addressed whether there was a separate occasion between rape and oral copulation)
Plaza v. State, 41 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal. App. 1995) (examines whether gaps between acts support separate occasions finding)
Garza v. State, 107 Cal.App.4th 1081 (Cal. App. 2003) (affirmed separate-occasions reasoning based on pause between acts)
King v. State, 183 Cal.App.4th 1281 (Cal. App. 2010) (recognized pause (e.g., lights, other activity) can constitute opportunity to reflect)
People v. Jones, 25 Cal.4th 98 (Cal. 2001) (set framework for separate-occasions analysis under §667.6(d))
People v. Estrada, 11 Cal.4th 568 (Cal. 1995) (vagueness/standards analysis guidance for statutory language)
Bowland v. Municipal Court, 18 Cal.3d 479 (Cal. 1976) (due process standard for vagueness in criminal statutes)
People v. Caswell, 46 Cal.Sd 381 (Cal. S. Ct. 1988) (due process requirement for clarity in prohibitions)