Filed 12/18/25 P. v. Sanchez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E085338
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF2200421)
JORDAN SANCHEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III,
Judge. Affirmed
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 In this Anders/Wende matter,1 defendant and appellant Jordan Sanchez appeals
from the trial court’s entry of judgment following a jury verdict convicting him of three
counts of sexual assault of a person unable to resist due to intoxication. Specifically,
defendant was convicted of rape, sexual penetration by any unknown object, and oral
copulation inflicted against his former fiancée, Jane Doe. (Pen. Code,2 §§ 261,
subd. (a)(3), 289, subd. (e), 287, subd. (i)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court
found four alleged aggravating factors to be true, including that the victim was
particularly vulnerable and that defendant took advantage of a position of trust or
confidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3) & (11); see also id. subds. (a)(1) &
(b)(1).) The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in state
prison. Our independent Anders and Wende review on appeal discloses no issues of
arguable merit on which to request briefing by the parties. (See People v. Johnson (1981)
123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for
success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND AND OUR REVIEW
In September 2021, defendant and Doe spent the late afternoon drinking alcohol
with friends in a parking lot near the beach in Huntington Beach. Doe consumed
Gatorade and watermelon-flavored vodka that she mixed in a cup. After three drinks, she
“blacked out” and when she regained consciousness, she was sweating and vomiting.
1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Defendant held her hair back while she vomited. Though they were no longer engaged,
Doe considered defendant to be her best friend at the time. Before she blacked out again,
Doe overheard one of the women present, Alyssa, warn defendant not to take advantage
of Doe in her condition. Doe could tell defendant was upset by the comment.
The next thing Doe remembered was defendant opening the door of his car for her
outside her home in Lake Elsinore, where she lived with her parents. Footage from the
Ring surveillance camera at her front door was played for the jury. The footage showed
Doe and defendant’s arrival around 10:30 p.m. at night. Doe appeared to be very
intoxicated; she could not walk straight and had to be supported by defendant, who
guided her inside.
Doe remembered taking a shower. She testified regarding the acts of sexual
assault defendant committed against her as she went in and out of consciousness. Doe
awoke at 5:00 a.m. the next morning on the floor of her bedroom. She still felt very sick
and her shoulders, arms, vagina, and mouth were sore. Defendant’s phone call awakened
her. He apologized to her, saying, “ ‘I’m so sorry’ ” and “ ‘I fucked up. I made a
mistake. I’m a piece of shit.’ ” He asked Doe not to contact the police.
Doe felt devastated, betrayed, and violated. She contacted law enforcement that
evening. A forensic nurse examiner testified at trial. Doe’s pelvic exam disclosed no
abnormal findings; she had a small scrape on her sternum. The nurse noted as part of her
examination that Doe commented on her poor, fragmented memory of the previous day.
Doe acknowledged consuming alcohol, but wondered whether she had ingested a drug of
some kind because did not ordinarily feel so sick after drinking. Doe did not
3 intentionally consume any drug. Doe testified at trial that while she had previously
experienced drinking alcohol to the point of vomiting, this time was “very” different in
that “I couldn’t move. I was very sick. I had gotten sick while being drunk before, but it
wasn’t to this extent.”
A deputy sheriff testified that he monitored a pretext call between Doe and
defendant. The call was played for the jury. During the call, when Doe said, “You raped
me,” defendant admitted, “I did. And I hate myself for it.”
A crime lab technician testified that male DNA was detected on swabs taken from
Doe’s exterior genital area during her forensic exam. Male DNA was also detected on
swabs from her breasts, with the DNA sample from her left breast indicating defendant
was 450,000 times the more likely contributor than any unrelated male. Male DNA was
also detected on the swab taken from Doe’s mouth, but the sample was insufficient for
further testing; no male DNA was detected on the vaginal swab.
Defendant testified Doe consented to sexual contact on the evening in question.
According to defendant, Doe said to him when he drove her home after the beach that she
wanted to “hook up” when they got back to her house. He testified Doe did not appear to
be intoxicated to him then or when they arrived there, including as depicted on the Ring
camera footage. He thought she stumbled on the way to her front door because she
twisted her ankle. He rated her level of intoxication on a scale of one to 10 at that time as
“one” or “even a zero.” He believed she was sober and did not think she had been
intoxicated at any time during the day, except perhaps right when she started drinking.
4 Defendant also testified that he and Doe used condoms on the previous occasions
they had intercourse. According to defendant, he did not have condoms with him at
Doe’s and he did not buy any at a gas station stop on the way to her house because he
lacked funds to “swipe my card.” He recalled the comment Alyssa made at the beach
warning him not to take advantage of Doe in her condition. The comment did not upset
him or seem unusual to him. Instead, he told Alyssa “she’s not drunk. She’s just
throwing up—making herself throw up.”
Defendant’s friend Anthony Romero testified that he did not think Doe was
particularly intoxicated while they were at the beach. He drove defendant and Doe from
the beach to defendant’s car, which was parked at Romero’s. Romero testified he thought
both were sober by the time they arrived at his apartment.
Following the jury’s verdict, defendant retained new counsel and moved for a new
trial. The trial court denied the motion. The court sentenced defendant to a seven-year
term, as noted above. Defendant appealed and this court appointed appellate counsel.
Counsel’s review of the record and legal research uncovered no arguable issues to
raise on appeal, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 12/18/25 P. v. Sanchez CA4/2
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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E085338
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF2200421)
JORDAN SANCHEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III,
Judge. Affirmed
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 In this Anders/Wende matter,1 defendant and appellant Jordan Sanchez appeals
from the trial court’s entry of judgment following a jury verdict convicting him of three
counts of sexual assault of a person unable to resist due to intoxication. Specifically,
defendant was convicted of rape, sexual penetration by any unknown object, and oral
copulation inflicted against his former fiancée, Jane Doe. (Pen. Code,2 §§ 261,
subd. (a)(3), 289, subd. (e), 287, subd. (i)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court
found four alleged aggravating factors to be true, including that the victim was
particularly vulnerable and that defendant took advantage of a position of trust or
confidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3) & (11); see also id. subds. (a)(1) &
(b)(1).) The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years in state
prison. Our independent Anders and Wende review on appeal discloses no issues of
arguable merit on which to request briefing by the parties. (See People v. Johnson (1981)
123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for
success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND AND OUR REVIEW
In September 2021, defendant and Doe spent the late afternoon drinking alcohol
with friends in a parking lot near the beach in Huntington Beach. Doe consumed
Gatorade and watermelon-flavored vodka that she mixed in a cup. After three drinks, she
“blacked out” and when she regained consciousness, she was sweating and vomiting.
1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Defendant held her hair back while she vomited. Though they were no longer engaged,
Doe considered defendant to be her best friend at the time. Before she blacked out again,
Doe overheard one of the women present, Alyssa, warn defendant not to take advantage
of Doe in her condition. Doe could tell defendant was upset by the comment.
The next thing Doe remembered was defendant opening the door of his car for her
outside her home in Lake Elsinore, where she lived with her parents. Footage from the
Ring surveillance camera at her front door was played for the jury. The footage showed
Doe and defendant’s arrival around 10:30 p.m. at night. Doe appeared to be very
intoxicated; she could not walk straight and had to be supported by defendant, who
guided her inside.
Doe remembered taking a shower. She testified regarding the acts of sexual
assault defendant committed against her as she went in and out of consciousness. Doe
awoke at 5:00 a.m. the next morning on the floor of her bedroom. She still felt very sick
and her shoulders, arms, vagina, and mouth were sore. Defendant’s phone call awakened
her. He apologized to her, saying, “ ‘I’m so sorry’ ” and “ ‘I fucked up. I made a
mistake. I’m a piece of shit.’ ” He asked Doe not to contact the police.
Doe felt devastated, betrayed, and violated. She contacted law enforcement that
evening. A forensic nurse examiner testified at trial. Doe’s pelvic exam disclosed no
abnormal findings; she had a small scrape on her sternum. The nurse noted as part of her
examination that Doe commented on her poor, fragmented memory of the previous day.
Doe acknowledged consuming alcohol, but wondered whether she had ingested a drug of
some kind because did not ordinarily feel so sick after drinking. Doe did not
3 intentionally consume any drug. Doe testified at trial that while she had previously
experienced drinking alcohol to the point of vomiting, this time was “very” different in
that “I couldn’t move. I was very sick. I had gotten sick while being drunk before, but it
wasn’t to this extent.”
A deputy sheriff testified that he monitored a pretext call between Doe and
defendant. The call was played for the jury. During the call, when Doe said, “You raped
me,” defendant admitted, “I did. And I hate myself for it.”
A crime lab technician testified that male DNA was detected on swabs taken from
Doe’s exterior genital area during her forensic exam. Male DNA was also detected on
swabs from her breasts, with the DNA sample from her left breast indicating defendant
was 450,000 times the more likely contributor than any unrelated male. Male DNA was
also detected on the swab taken from Doe’s mouth, but the sample was insufficient for
further testing; no male DNA was detected on the vaginal swab.
Defendant testified Doe consented to sexual contact on the evening in question.
According to defendant, Doe said to him when he drove her home after the beach that she
wanted to “hook up” when they got back to her house. He testified Doe did not appear to
be intoxicated to him then or when they arrived there, including as depicted on the Ring
camera footage. He thought she stumbled on the way to her front door because she
twisted her ankle. He rated her level of intoxication on a scale of one to 10 at that time as
“one” or “even a zero.” He believed she was sober and did not think she had been
intoxicated at any time during the day, except perhaps right when she started drinking.
4 Defendant also testified that he and Doe used condoms on the previous occasions
they had intercourse. According to defendant, he did not have condoms with him at
Doe’s and he did not buy any at a gas station stop on the way to her house because he
lacked funds to “swipe my card.” He recalled the comment Alyssa made at the beach
warning him not to take advantage of Doe in her condition. The comment did not upset
him or seem unusual to him. Instead, he told Alyssa “she’s not drunk. She’s just
throwing up—making herself throw up.”
Defendant’s friend Anthony Romero testified that he did not think Doe was
particularly intoxicated while they were at the beach. He drove defendant and Doe from
the beach to defendant’s car, which was parked at Romero’s. Romero testified he thought
both were sober by the time they arrived at his apartment.
Following the jury’s verdict, defendant retained new counsel and moved for a new
trial. The trial court denied the motion. The court sentenced defendant to a seven-year
term, as noted above. Defendant appealed and this court appointed appellate counsel.
Counsel’s review of the record and legal research uncovered no arguable issues to
raise on appeal, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching
that conclusion, counsel has noted two related issues for our potential reconsideration in
our independent review. First, did the trial court err in not specifically advising defendant
that his right to a jury trial, and the consequences of waiving that right, extended to the
bifurcated aggravating factors? Second, if the absence of such an advisement was error,
was the error prejudicial given the low term the court imposed on the principal count?
5 Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied
defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no
arguable appellate issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.