People v. Williams CA2/2

Filed 6/30/16 P. v. Williams CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B267484

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA412265) v.

LAMAR EDWARD WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dennis J. Landin, Judge. Affirmed.

Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Ilana Herscovitz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******

Lamar Edward Williams (defendant) appeals his convictions of forcible oral copulation and aggravated kidnapping, as well as the ensuing 100-years-to-life prison sentence, on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence that his victim had, the year before, loitered for the purposes of prostitution. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion, and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts In April 2009, defendant approached S.L. two or three times as she walked away from a bus stop. The last time he approached her, defendant had one of his hands in the pocket of the hoodie he was wearing, told her in an agitated voice that he had a gun, and ordered her into a nearby dark alley. Once in the alley, defendant removed S.L.’s pants, performed oral sex on her and ordered her to perform oral sex on him; when he ejaculated, she spat it out. S.L. reported to some persons (but not to others) that she also performed oral sex on defendant a second time and that defendant attempted to have vaginal sex with her. Once the sex acts were completed, defendant walked S.L. back to the alley’s entrance and told her to wait there until he left in his car. In May 2012, law enforcement showed S.L. a photospread and she identified defendant as her assailant. After this identification, law enforcement compared defendant’s DNA with the DNA in the semen collected from S.L.’s chin immediately after the assault; there was a match. Law enforcement questioned defendant. He indicated that he did not know S.L., was unfamiliar with the neighborhood where the assault took place, and had been intimate with only two people in 2009: (1) his wife; and (2) the mother of his children. II. Procedural History The People charged defendant with two counts of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2))1, a single count of aggravated kidnapping (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)), and a single count of second degree robbery (§ 211). As to all but the