Cy_Click, I'm not sure I understand your question.
If his appeal is successful, he's not a "not convicted rapist", he is simply not a rapist. As things stand, he is guilty of rape and therefore he is a rapist. If his appeal is successful and that conviction is quashed, he is not a rapist.
You can't be innocent of rape AND a rapist at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.
Of course guilty people are found innocent and innocent people are found guilty all the time. If the facts are what they are he either did commit rape by having sex with an intoxicated woman or having sex with an intoxicated woman is not rape. What is his grounds for appeal? That what he did was not rape or that what he did should not classify him as a rapist?