P. v. Solorzano

















Filed 10/5/10 P. v. Solorzano CA2/2

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 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



SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
TWO




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDGAR RENE SOLORZANO, Defendant and Appellant.

B216799 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA069777)

APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Affirmed.



Richard D.
Miggins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and
Carl N. Henry, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.





______________

Edgar Rene Solorzano appeals from the judgment entered
upon his convictions by jury of rape by
drugs (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(3), count 1)^[1] and sexual penetration by foreign object (§
289, subd. (e), count 4). The trial
court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of eight years. Appellant contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions, (2) the trial court erred (a) in allowing the admission of
evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct, thereby depriving him of his rights
to due process and a fair trial, (b) in refusing to allow the defense a full
and fair cross-examination of the victim's history of alcohol consumption,
thereby depriving him of his constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against
him, present a defense, due process
and a fair trial, and (c) in excluding two defense witnesses, depriving
appellant of his rights to present a defense, assistance of counsel, due
process and a fair trial, and (3) execution of sentence on count 4 should
be stayed pursuant to section 654.

We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The prosecution's
evidence

The
charged offenses

In February 2007, 18-year-old
Jacqueline Z. worked at Starbucks, where appellant frequented. She served and talked with him on the
job. Appellant often gave Starbucks
employees free suite tickets to Dodger games.
Jacqueline went to the games using the free tickets twice, but at the
invitation of Starbucks employees, who had obtained them from appellant. Appellant also attended those games. Jacqueline never went alone with him.

On February 19, 2007, appellant sent
Jacqueline several text messages asking if she wanted to go out later for
drinks with him and his friends. She had
given him her number so he could give her tickets. Appellant said he knew a bar where she would
not get carded, so she agreed. She did
not think she was going to be alone with him and had no romantic interest in
him.

They met at Starbucks, and
Jacqueline got into appellant's car.
During the drive to a restaurant in Pasadena,
they chatted. Appellant said he was
27 years old, though he was 39. He
also said that the ring he was wearing looked like a wedding band but was a
class ring. He gave no indication he was
romantically interested in her.

At the
restaurant, they sat at the bar, and appellant ordered two bottles of
beer. Jacqueline drank about half of her
bottle. Because the restaurant was loud,
after one-half hour, he asked her if she wanted to go elsewhere so they could
talk. She agreed, and they left.

Appellant
drove to a grocery store where he purchased plastic cups, soda and vodka. He then drove to his office building,
arriving near 9:15 p.m. They went into another employee's office
where Jacqueline turned on the stereo, while appellant poured drinks, filling
the 16-ounce cups. She was not looking
at him while he did so, though she told officers that she saw him pour the
drinks. The drinks did not taste too
strong but more like soda. She did not
object to drinking alcohol.

Approximately one-half hour later,
after Jacqueline drank at most one-third of her drink, she walked to the
bathroom down the hall, beginning to feel â€