People v. Solis CA2/6

Filed 8/2/16 P. v. Solis CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B267879 (Super. Ct. No. 2013034723) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

XICO M. SOLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Xico M. Solis appeals from judgment following conviction by jury of five counts of child molestation (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))1 and one count of luring a minor (§ 288.3, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for a term of 67 years to life. Solis contends that section 288.3 is unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad, and impermissibly impinges on his First Amendment rights. He also contends that his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Solis molested D.C. D. was 12 years old. Solis lived with D.’s aunt Alejandra. D. frequently slept over at the house that Solis and Alejandra shared.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

One morning after D. spent the night at Alejandra’s home, Solis pulled D. down onto his lap. He grabbed her right breast over her clothes, then placed his left hand on her thigh and grabbed her vagina over her clothes. D. did not complain because she was scared. Some months later, D. spent the night at Alejandra’s home and Solis touched her again. He hugged her from behind and grabbed both her breasts and moved his hands over them. He then grabbed her vagina with one hand and continued to hold her breast with the other. She called for help but no one came. She tried to get away and he grabbed her right elbow. He said, “shh, shh” and then released her. He giggled as he walked away. Another time when they were both in the house, Solis sent D. several text messages. He asked her if she liked men or women. D. replied that she liked men. Solis wrote “ooh, that’s good” with three exclamation marks. He asked her if she had “been with” a man. She replied no. Solis asked her when she was going to “do it.” He told D. that it would hurt the first time but she would like it and then she would do it every day. He told her she could ask him anything about sex. D. told him not to text her anymore and that she would tell her “tia.” The next day, D. told her aunt Gabriella about Solis’s conduct and showed her the text messages. She was shaking uncontrollably and crying. Gabriella took D. to the police station to report the crimes. Solis was arrested. DISCUSSION Section 288.3 Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague Appellant contends that section 288.3 is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks readily understood standards. The argument lacks merit. ‘“The constitutional interest implicated in questions of statutory vagueness is that no person be deprived of ‘life, liberty, or property without due process of law,’ as assured by both the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV) and the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7). Under both Constitutions, due process of law in this context requires two elements: a criminal statute must “‘be definite enough to