Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA302059, Michael E. Pastor, Judge.
Cynthia A. Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Tannaz Kouhpainezhad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WOODS, J.
Darrell Lamont Flowers was convicted after a court trial of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664) (count 1), aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code, § 205) (count 2), and infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) (count 3). The court found as to all three counts that Flowers personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife) in committing the offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and as to counts 1 and 3 that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (e)). The court sentenced Flowers to a term of life with the possibility of parole on count 1, plus the middle term of four years for the great bodily injury enhancement and one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. Sentences on the remaining counts and enhancements were imposed and stayed under Penal Code section 654. On appeal, Flowers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for aggravated mayhem. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Summary of Evidence Presented at Trial
Flowers and Tamara Welcome had a romantic relationship for approximately nine years that ended in 2006, and the couple no longer lived together. They had a daughter who was eight years old in April 2006, and Flowers attended her family birthday party. At the party, Welcome’s sister joked with Flowers about tying a strap around Welcome’s neck to keep her in line. In response, Flowers pulled out a knife from his belt and said he had a “quicker way to take care of that.”
The next day, Flowers telephoned Welcome numerous times while she was dining with friends; he questioned her repeatedly about whom she was with and what she was doing. Welcome eventually turned off her cellular phone. Later, Welcome picked up her daughter at her sister’s house and drove home. She arrived at her apartment building at around 10:15 p.m. Flowers’s car was in Welcome’s parking space so she decided to park on the street. Before Welcome had turned off her engine, Flowers appeared at the driver’s side of her car. He looked angry, and Welcome was frightened. She was about to drive away, but Flowers assured her that he was not going to harm her; he just wanted to talk to her. Flowers lifted his shirt to show that he was not carrying a weapon.
Welcome and her daughter left the car and started walking towards her apartment building. Flowers followed, but then told Welcome to wait so he could retrieve his cellular phone from his car. Welcome declined, telling him the hour was too late for him to come up to her apartment. Flowers went to his car anyway, and Welcome took her daughter through the gate. She turned to close the gate, but Flowers stood in the way. He pleaded with Welcome to allow him to go upstairs so they could talk. Welcome refused. Flowers became agitated and began digging in his pockets. When Welcome asked what he doing, Flowers retrieved something from his pocket and began attacking her. Welcome thought he was punching her in the face; she did not realize Flowers was using a knife until she felt the blood running down her face. Flowers first stabbed Welcome’s right jaw area; then he stabbed her four to five times in the center of her face, with wounds to her nose, mouth and lips. Welcome’s daughter was standing nearby inside the gate when her mother was attacked.
Welcome fled through the gate, screaming for help and trying to reach a telephone booth on the corner. She was pursued by Flowers, who began stabbing her in the back. Welcome begged Flowers to stop the attack. He grabbed Welcome’s jacket, and she fell to the ground, ending up in a sitting position and attempting to kick Flowers. In response, Flowers stabbed her foot, knee and the back of her head. As Flowers made efforts to shield herself from the attack, Flowers said, “You’re going to die tonight. Jesus can’t help you no more. If I can’t have you, nobody will.” At one point, Flowers dropped the knife. Welcome managed to push the knife under her legs, but Flowers grabbed it and began stabbing her in the chest. Welcome recognized the knife as the same weapon that Flowers had displayed at her daughter’s birthday party. Welcome’s daughter was outside the gate, screaming for her mother not to leave her. Flowers started to cut Welcome’s neck, but an unknown man intervened, and Flowers immediately left.
Welcome had a total of 23 stab wounds to various parts of her body. The facial wounds were to her nose, upper and lower lips and jaw. Welcome lost the tip of her nose in the attack, leaving her nasal cavity exposed. Welcome also lost a piece of her lip. The wounds to her lips extended into her oral cavity. Her jaw was fractured and her salivary gland was exposed. Welcome’s remaining stab wounds were to her right forearm, which lacerated her tendons; and her chest, resulting in a partially collapsed lung. There were additional multiple wounds to her heel, hand, both shoulders, and scalp. At the time of trial, Welcome had undergone three surgeries on her right arm and two surgeries to reconstruct her nose and to repair her lips and jaw. Future surgery was scheduled. Besides extensive scarring on her face and body, Welcome also suffered the loss of strength and mobility in her injured hand, arm and shoulders.
Flowers testified in his defense that he did not go to Welcome’s apartment with the intent to stab her; he had forgotten the knife was on his belt. Flowers admitted stabbing Welcome because she refused to talk with him, used abusive language, and pushed him out the gate. Flowers became enraged; he was not thinking during the attack. In the midst of the attack, Flowers realized what he was doing and stopped. Flowers wanted to hurt Welcome with the knife; he never intended or attempted to disfigure her. He admitted telling Welcome he was going to kill her.
2. Counsel’s Argument
In closing argument to the trial court, the prosecutor maintained Flowers committed aggravated mayhem (count 2) inside the gate of the apartment building, when he stabbed Welcome four to five times in the center of her face, amputating part of her nose, cutting open her lips and fracturing her jaw. The prosecutor urged both the location and the nature of the resulting injuries reflected a calculated effort to cause permanent disfigurement, rather than random violence. Defense counsel argued the evidence failed to show Flowers intended to maim Welcome. Instead, as Flowers told Welcome at the time, he intended to kill her and his manner of attack was consistent with that intent. Flowers swung the knife wildly, stabbing Welcome 23 times all over her head and body in a sudden explosion of violence, prompted by rage. The fact Flowers began by stabbing Welcome’s face did not indicate an intent to disfigure her. Rather, counsel theorized, Welcome’s face (head) was merely the first part of her body to which Flower had immediate and unobstructed access. Counsel noted the two of them were standing close together inside the gate, and Flowers is taller than Welcome.
DISCUSSION
“A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person, intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body.” (Pen. Code, § 205.)
“Evidence that shows no more than an ‘indiscriminate attack’ is insufficient to prove the required specific intent. [Citation.] ‘Furthermore, specific intent to maim may not be inferred solely from evidence that the injury inflicted actually constitutes mayhem; instead, there must be other facts and circumstances which support an inference of intent to maim rather than to attack indiscriminately. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Park (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 61, 64.)
Specific intent may be inferred from a number of factors, including the circumstances of an act, the manner in which it is done, and the means used. (People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1162.) Courts have found the specific intent required for aggravated mayhem when, in addition to the maiming injury, the attack was focused on one area of the body, the force used was limited, and the attack was not a random one on the victim’s body. (See People v. Campbell (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1653, 1668-1669.) Evidence of deliberation and planning, as well as attacks on particularly vulnerable areas, such as the face and head, also support an inference of a specific intent to maim. (See People v. Park, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69-70; People v. Quintero, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.)
In this case, it is undisputed there was sufficient evidence Flowers committed mayhem; Flowers contests only the sufficiency of the evidence that he harbored the specific intent to maim Welcome to be convicted of aggravated mayhem. As he did before the trial court, Flowers contends the evidence showed his attack on Welcome was an “indiscriminate act” or “explosion of violence,” unaccompanied by the requisite specific intent. His contention amounts to no more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence and to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. That is not the function of a reviewing court. (People v. Culver (1973) 10 Cal.3d 542, 548.)
In any event, there was ample evidence Flowers specifically intended to maim Welcome when he launched his attack on her inside the gate. He began by stabbing Welcome’s face, a particularly vulnerable area, and he directed the knife at the center of her face, leaving a cluster of four to five wounds on Welcome’s nose, lips and jaw. With each stab, Flowers inflicted extensive damage to a limited area. At the time of trial, Welcome had undergone surgeries to repair and to reconstruct her nose, lips and jaw.
The attack also reflected deliberation and planning. At Welcome’s car, Flowers insisted that she talk with him in her apartment, even raising his shirt to show he was not carrying the knife on his belt. When Welcome refused his demand, it is reasonable to infer Flowers decided to retrieve his knife from his car, and not his cellular phone as he claimed. Flowers wanted to be armed with the knife in the event Welcome would not change her mind. Once inside the gate, Flowers again told Welcome he wanted her to talk with him, this time pleading with her, but she steadfastly refused. Enraged, Flowers began stabbing Welcome’s face. The evidence suggests Flowers only stopped using the knife on Welcome’s face because she turned and fled. Flowers’s attack on Welcome inside the gate was directed, controlled, and focused or limited in scope. The record supports the trial court’s finding that Flowers acted with the intent to maim. His conflicting testimony and the cases he cites do not compel a contrary conclusion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., ZELON, J.