What is the current state of the law on sexual assault?

After review of the record, appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

We advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. Defendant filed a brief in which he contends that he "never stood a chance to survive all the tainted accusations brought against him." He appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove his guilt. However, viewing the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment, and drawing all inferences in support, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the convictions. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)

Defendant also asserts that the prosecutor was biased against him. As we understand it, the basis of the claim is that the prosecutor sought a second trial after the first jury deadlocked on the kidnapping and oral copulation charges. However, following the declaration of a mistrial, a retrial on those charges was entirely proper. (People v. Schulz (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 563, 568-569; 1160.)