P. v. Solano-Rosario
After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of numerous offenses stemming from his violent sexual attack on a woman, Jane Doe.[1] Specifically, appellant was found guilty of Count I, alleging forcible sexual penetration (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)).[2] In connection with this conviction, the jury found true the aggravated kidnapping enhancement (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (d), (e)). Appellant was also found guilty of Count II, alleging kidnapping with the intent to commit forcible sexual penetration (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)), and Count III, alleging assault with the intent to commit forcible sexual penetration (§ 220, subd. (a)).
On appeal, appellant claims “the evidence was insufficient to convict of any form of kidnapping.†He also argues that the jury was prejudicially misled by the instructions given on the risk of harm to the victim, and the instructions given on the use of circumstantial evidence in proving the charged offenses. Finally, he claims the court erred when it denied all conduct credit for his presentence confinement.
We affirm the judgment. However, as respondent concedes, appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s decision not to award any conduct credits has merit. Consequently, we amend the abstract of judgment to show 115 additional days of presentence conduct credit.
Comments on P. v. Solano-Rosario