Court Opinion

ID: 9891479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 18:03:41.150797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:06.203884
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/18/23 P. v. Chicas CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Yolo)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097872

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. CR20220478)

           v.

 DAVID ALEXANDER PADILLA CHICAS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         On the night of April 5, 2019, K.P. attended a party at an apartment on the
University of California, Davis, campus. A week before, defendant David Alexander
Padilla Chicas and K.P. exchanged text messages in which he said things that “came off
flirty.” K.P. knew defendant because he had dated one of her friends. Defendant asked if
she was going to the party, and she said yes. She asked if he was going but at that
moment defendant did not know if he was going or not.
         K.P. arrived with three friends that she knew from high school. At the party, K.P.
drank two cups of “jungle juice,” a mixture of vodka and fruit juice, as well as a shot of

                                                             1
tequila and brandy mixed together. She also had “one hit” of marijuana. After the first
cup of jungle juice, K.P. did not feel the effects of the alcohol. After the second cup,
K.P. started to feel drunk. She told her friends she felt like throwing up, so she was going
to go to the bathroom.
       K.P. started walking towards the bathroom when she saw defendant leaning
against the refrigerator in the kitchen. Defendant stopped her and asked her where she
was going. She said she was going to the bathroom to throw up and defendant said he
would help her. They went into the bathroom and K.P. went to the toilet to make herself
throw up. Defendant pulled her up and leaned her against the sink. They started kissing.
Defendant touched her breasts, first over and then under her clothes. Defendant started to
unbutton her pants to insert his fingers in her. K.P. realized what was happening, told
him to stop, and went back to the toilet. Defendant pushed K.P. down against the
bathtub. He turned off the light and locked the door. Defendant took off K.P.’s pants.
She froze. Defendant took off his pants. K.P. was lying on the floor with her head
against the bathtub and defendant on top of her. K.P. told him to stop and get off her,
saying she was too drunk. She told defendant he was raping her but he would not listen.
Defendant inserted his penis in K.P.’s vagina. Defendant did not use a condom. He
ejaculated in K.P.’s vagina. Defendant pulled up his pants and told K.P. to lean against
the toilet and act like she was throwing up. Defendant unlocked the door, turned on the
light, and left. K.P. was crying. As defendant was leaving, K.P. saw one of her friends
outside the door, who went and got another of her friends. K.P. was lying on the floor
against the bathtub, sobbing. Her pants were unbuttoned and pulled down. K.P. kept
repeating, “I said ‘no.’ ”
       The prosecution charged defendant with forcible rape (count 1), forcible sexual
penetration (count 2), rape of an intoxicated person (count 3), and sexual penetration by a
foreign object of an intoxicated person (count 4). The jury found defendant guilty of
count 1 and not guilty of counts 2, 3, and 4. The trial court sentenced defendant to the

                                             2
lower base term of three years, determined defendant was entitled to 71 total days credit
for time served consisting of 62 actual days and nine local conduct days, and imposed
fines and assessments.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant
of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening
brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we received no communication from
defendant.
       Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we affirm.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
MAURO, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                              3