People v. Salazar CA6

Filed 9/10/21 P. v. Salazar CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H048801 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19CR003663)

v.

ROBERT SALAZAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

In April 2019,1 appellant Robert Salazar sexually assaulted Jane Doe, a 25 year- old developmentally delayed young woman.2 Salazar was Doe’s father’s best friend. Doe, whose cognitive development was equivalent to that of an eight or nine year-old child, was spending the night with Salazar and his wife, who were taking care of her at a home owned by Doe’s parents. Salazar and his wife got into an argument, and his wife left. Doe asked Salazar if he needed company, and Salazar replied that he did. They got into bed together. Salazar took off Doe’s pajamas and digitally penetrated and orally copulated Doe. He inserted his penis into her vagina and anus. Salazar made Doe promise not to tell anyone what happened.

1 All dates were in 2019 unless otherwise indicated. These facts are drawn from the probation report prepared for Salazar’s 2

sentencing.

One of Doe’s caretakers later overheard Doe on the phone telling someone (presumably Salazar) her “ ‘lips [were] sealed,’ ” and she did not want him to go to jail. Suspicious about the conversation, the caretaker informed Doe’s aunt, who in turn contacted the police after speaking with Doe. A SART (Sexual Assault Response Team) exam revealed that Doe had injuries consistent with sexual assault. A police investigation revealed that Salazar had previously been convicted of a prior sex offense, and he was out of compliance with his sex offender registration requirement. After his arrest for crimes against Doe, Salazar made calls from jail in which he attempted to dissuade Doe’s parents from cooperating in the prosecution against him. At the time of these events, Doe was subject to a conservatorship, and her mother was her conservator. Salazar was charged by information with forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2); count 1),3 sodomy by use of force (§ 286, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 2), sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A); count 3), forcible oral copulation (§ 287, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 4), rape of an incompetent person (§ 261, subd. (a)(1); count 5), sodomy of an incompetent person (§ 286, subd. (g); count 6), sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (b); count 7), oral copulation of an incompetent person (§ 287, subd. (g); count 8), and dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 9). With respect to counts 1 through 4, the information alleged that Salazar had been convicted of a prior sex offense (§ 261.2) within the meaning of section 667.6, subdivision (a); the information also alleged that Salazar had been convicted of a prior serious or violent offense (strike conviction) (§§ 667, subd. (e)(1) & 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). In pretrial litigation, Salazar’s counsel subpoenaed records from the Probate Division of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court (where Doe had been conserved)