People v. Alarconnunez CA2/6

Filed 8/15/22 P. v. Alarconnunez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B311953 (Super. Ct. No. 18F-00491) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ALFONSO ALARCONNUNEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Alfonso Alarconnunez appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of multiple counts of sexual assault, forcible rape, burglary, and other theft crimes. (Pen. Code, §§ 261, subd. (a)(2), (3), 667.61, 220, subds. (a), (b), 288A, subd. (i), 459, 487, subd. (a).)1 Appellant contends recent legislative changes require reversal and remand for resentencing. The Attorney General agrees. We remand for resentencing consistent with Senate Bill

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

No. 567 and Assembly Bill No. 518. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because the parties correctly concede this matter must be remanded for resentencing, we provide only an abbreviated summary of the factual basis for appellant’s convictions. The evidence at trial established that appellant, posing as an Uber driver gave rides to intoxicated young women. Upon entry into their apartments, he sexually assaulted each victim, took photographs and videos of them, stole valuable items from them and then sent himself large sums of money through their Venmo accounts. Each victim became heavily intoxicated at a party or bar. Some victims believed they had been drugged. Because they were intoxicated, the victims or their friends arranged for them to return home using an Uber. In nearly all of the cases, appellant acted as their driver, took them to their apartments, escorted them inside and then sexually assaulted them. Appellant took photos and videos of the victims during and after the assaults. While the victims were unconscious, appellant stole their belongings and sent himself money through their Venmo accounts. Afterward, he sent the victims Facebook messages insinuating that they had consented to both the sexual assaults and the Venmo transfers. Appellant’s DNA matched samples obtained from the victims. He was confirmed to be the owner of the Facebook messenger and Venmo accounts associated with the crimes. Police executed a search warrant at appellant’s house and recovered the victims’ stolen property as well as photographs and videos of them.