People v. Barksdale CA3

Filed 9/12/25 P. v. Barksdale CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101763

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE000769)

v.

SHAUKU DARYL BARKSDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Shauku Daryl Barksdale guilty of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to 16 years in prison. He argues now that the court abused its discretion and violated his federal due process rights by admitting evidence of his prior juvenile adjudication for rape. This claim is without merit. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with rape by means of force or fear (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and alleged numerous aggravating circumstances and that defendant suffered a sustained petition for rape in 1988 when defendant was 17 years old.

1

At trial, the victim testified that in 2019 she and her boyfriend were housemates with defendant and his wife. On February 3, the victim and her boyfriend were arguing as they entered the home. The victim’s boyfriend loaded some personal items into his car and left. Defendant and his wife also left but defendant returned 20 to 25 minutes later. Defendant asked the victim how she was doing, and they discussed the victim selling some of her boyfriend’s possessions online. After defendant smoked methamphetamine from the victim’s pipe, defendant reached between the victim’s legs and asked “so this is free now?” The victim attempted to physically separate herself from defendant; defendant tried to pull down her leggings. The victim pulled her legs up in a fetal position on her bed, but defendant ultimately pulled down her leggings and underwear. The victim said she was not interested in having sex with him. Defendant pushed his erect penis into her vagina. The victim continued resisting and saying no but defendant overcame her resistance and ejaculated. Later, she heard defendant say something to the effect of “all right, see you later,” and then heard the front door close. The parties stipulated to the jury that in 1988 at the age of 17, defendant pled no contest to rape by force in juvenile court. The jury here then found defendant guilty of rape. At a bench trial, the trial court found defendant suffered a prior strike conviction and found true several aggravating circumstances. The court sentenced defendant to 16 years imprisonment (the upper term, doubled due to the prior strike). Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code1 sections 352 and 1108 by admitting evidence that defendant had suffered a prior rape