People v. Bahena-Bahena CA4/1
Filed 5/28/25 P. v. Bahena-Bahena CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084835
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300901)
ANTONIO BAHENA-BAHENA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Antonio Bahena-Bahena of oral copulation of an intoxicated person (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (i); count 1) and an unconscious person (§ 287(f); count 2). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating he found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende requires. We offered Bahena-Bahena the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm. I. A. John Doe and Bahena-Bahena met in a store. Bahena-Bahena asked for Doe’s cell phone number, and Doe, who did not have any friends in San Diego, gave it to him. After chatting for several weeks, they met several times in person. They would talk, drink, smoke marijuana, and listen to music in Bahena-Bahena’s car or truck. During their first meeting, Bahena-Bahena asked Doe if he liked men. Doe said “no,” he “wasn’t gay,” and that he “was going out with a woman.” According to Doe, Bahena-Bahena thanked Doe for letting him know and told Doe he was gay. According to Bahena-Bahena, he nonetheless thought Doe might be interested in something more than friendship because Doe would do things like touch Bahena-Bahena’s hair and say that he “‘like[d]’” and “‘appreciate[d]’” him. B. According to Doe, he mentioned to Bahena-Bahena that his “birthday was coming up,” and Bahena-Bahena invited Doe to meet so he would not be alone. According to Bahena-Bahena, Doe asked him to spend time with him on his birthday. Either way, Bahena-Bahena picked up Doe the evening before Doe’s birthday. As usual, they drank, smoked marijuana, chatted, and listened to music in Bahena-Bahena’s car. Between the two of them, they consumed
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)