People v. Reed CA4/2 ( 2014 )

Filed 5/21/14 P. v. Reed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E059705
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1300690)
GUY DAVID REED, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard Todd Fields,
Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Guy David Reed guilty of assault by means
of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1);1
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
1
battery inflicting serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2); and criminal threats
(§ 422; count 3). The jury also found true that during the commission of count 1,
defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had suffered three prior prison
terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one
prior serious and violent felony strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12,
subd. (c)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 16 years in state prison with
credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We find no error and will
affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2013, an altercation ensued between defendant and the victim,
both homeless, inside a McDonald’s restaurant in the city of Corona when the victim
refused to give defendant money to buy a soda. During the altercation, defendant told the
victim, “‘I’m going to kick your ass.’” The victim left the McDonald’s and walked
across the street. Defendant followed the victim with a knife in his hand. Scared, the
victim walked to the entrance of the Stater Bros. grocery store and stopped.
Defendant followed the victim, walked by him, and said, “‘Fuck you. I’ll fuck
you up. I’ll kill you.’” The victim did not see the knife on defendant at that time, but the
victim feared that defendant would hurt him. Defendant walked past the victim, but the
victim followed him because the victim was frustrated with defendant for threatening
2
him. As the victim approached defendant, he told defendant “‘F you.’” Defendant
stopped, got into a boxing stance with his arms up and fists closed, and said, “I’m going
to fuck you up.” The victim put his hand out in front of him with his palm open and
asked defendant, “What the fuck is wrong? Why is this happening?” Defendant then put
the victim in a choke hold and punched the victim in the head, leaving the victim in a
daze. Defendant then smashed the victim’s head into the side of the building.
Several witnesses observed defendant and the victim arguing and fighting near the
entrance of the Stater Bros. grocery store. One of the witnesses testified that the victim
walked over toward defendant, saying “Let’s fight.” Some hand gestures were then
exchanged; defendant took off his jacket; and the two began fighting. Another witness
testified that he saw defendant take the first swing at the victim—a straight jab with a
closed fist. Both of the witnesses stated that they saw defendant slam the victim’s head
into the concrete wall several times and that they heard the sound of the victim’s head
making contact with the wall. One of the witnesses attempted to stop the fight.
Defendant eventually stopped after the witness said the police were coming.
The victim was bleeding profusely and one of the witnesses wrapped his shirt
around defendant’s head. After the witness alerted Stater Bros. personnel of the situation,
an employee called 911.
3
As defendant left the scene, the other witness followed defendant. The witness
saw defendant holding a box cutter pointing downwards in defendant’s left hand. At this
point, the witness stopped following defendant. Defendant never turned around or
threatened the witness.
Officers arrived at the scene and saw blood splatter on the sidewalk and on the
wall. The victim was transported to a hospital in an ambulance. At the hospital, the
victim was still bleeding from his head. An officer observed that the victim appeared
intoxicated and had an odor of alcohol on his breath. The victim had a two-and-a-half
inch laceration on his forehead and his skull was visible. The victim required two layers
of stitches—about five deep stitches and 20 to 30 on the skin.
Corporal Ryan Brett of the Corona Police Department located defendant standing
outside the McDonald’s restaurant with a box cutter in his hand. Defendant appeared
“worked up or very excited.” Corporal Brett told defendant to put down the box cutter;
after questioning why, defendant put the box cutter down. Corporal Brett asked
defendant for his identification and if he was involved with the incident at Stater Bros.
Defendant replied that he “had some involvement.”
Corporal Daniel Hackett of the Corona Police Department interviewed defendant.
Defendant appeared agitated and was angry and upset at the victim, and at the witnesses
for playing cops. Defendant claimed that the victim had been harassing him all day, and
that he (defendant) had taken the first swing, but that neither he nor the victim had hit
each other. Defendant stated that while in the headlock, he and the victim tripped and fell
4
into the wall. Defendant did not state that he was defending himself or that he was afraid
of the victim.
On July 1, 2013, an amended information was filed charging defendant with
one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245,
subd. (a)(4); count 1); battery inflicting serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2);
criminal threats (§ 422; count 3); attempted robbery (§§ 664/211; count 4); and exhibiting
a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)). The amended information
further alleged that during the commission of count 1, defendant personally inflicted
great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The amended information also
alleged that defendant had sustained three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one
prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior serious and violent felony
strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
The jury trial began on July 10, 2013. After the prosecution rested, the trial court
granted defendant’s section 1118.1 motion to dismiss counts 4 and 5. At the conclusion
of trial on July 19, 2013, the jury found defendant guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3. The jury
also found true that during the commission of count 1, defendant personally inflicted
great bodily injury. In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had suffered
three prior prison terms, one prior serious felony conviction, and one prior strike
conviction.
5
On September 6, 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 16
years in state prison with credit of 256 days for time served as follows: the upper term of
eight years for count 1, plus a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury
enhancement, plus a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction; the
upper term of eight years on count 2 and the upper term of six years on count 3 were
stayed pursuant to section 654; and the court struck the three prior prison term
enhancements under section 1385. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
II
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an
independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
6
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.
7