Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County No. 2005014837, of Los Angeles, Douglas Daily, Judge
Katherine L. Redmond, 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, Lawrence M. Daniels, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Eric E. Reynolds, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
Ricardo Scott Galvan appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial at which he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The court found true an allegation that appellant had personally inflicted great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to prison for six years. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because he had "a good-faith claim of right" to recover property stolen from him and because he stabbed the victim in self-defense. We affirm.
Facts
Demetris Russell, the victim of the assault with a deadly weapon, testified as follows: He approached appellant for the purported purpose of purchasing marijuana. Russell said to appellant, "Let me see it [the marijuana]." Appellant showed Russell a bag of marijuana. Russell "snatched it out of his hand" without paying for it and "took off running." Russell did not take any money from appellant.
About five minutes later and a "couple of blocks" away from where the theft of the marijuana had occurred, appellant and another man exited a white car and walked toward Russell. Appellant said, "That's him, that's him." Russell did not run away. He intended to "confront" appellant because "he knew [appellant] might be angry" about the taking of his marijuana. Russell "started approaching" appellant but stopped when he saw that appellant was holding a knife. Russell did not possess a weapon. He "turned around" and started to run away. But after running only "a couple [of] feet," he slipped on wet grass and fell to the ground. While Russell was lying on his back, appellant ran at him and stabbed him seven times. After the stabbing, Russell picked up a stick that he had found on the ground and held it up "for self-defense." Appellant and his companion "took off" and "jumped back in the white car," which drove away.
On cross-examination, Russell testified that he had "rush[ed]" at appellant after appellant "jumped out of the car."
In addition to Russell, respondent called two witnesses to the assault: Erika Rodriguez and Arturo Galaviz. Rodriguez testified as follows: She was driving the white car from which appellant exited. Galaviz, her boyfriend, was also a passenger in the vehicle. When appellant got out of the car, he was holding a stick. Russell started to run away but then stopped. Appellant hit Russell with his fist, and Russell fell backward onto the ground. While Russell was on the ground, appellant stabbed him several times with a knife. Russell did not have a weapon, and he did not attempt to fight back.
Arturo Galaviz testified that Russell did not "rush" at appellant. Appellant approached Russell and hit him with a stick, which broke. Russell fell onto the grass. Appellant got on top of Russell and appeared to hit Russell with his fists. Russell did not have a weapon and did not try to fight back. "He was just stunned. He didn't know what to do."
Appellant did not testify or call any witnesses to testify on his behalf.
Standard of Review
On a claim of insufficiency of the evidence "we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence - that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value - from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) We must " ' "presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1, 23.) "[I]t is not within our province to reweigh the evidence or redetermine issues of credibility. [Citation.]" (People v. Martinez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 400, 412.) "[A]ll conflicts in the evidence . . . must be resolved in favor of the judgment. [Citations.]" (People v. Mitchell (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 325, 329.) "Reversal . . . is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].' [Citation.]" (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
Discussion
Appellant does not dispute that he stabbed Russell after Russell had stolen his marijuana. Appellant contends that, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon because (1) he had "a good-faith claim of right" to recover property stolen from him, and (2) he stabbed Russell in self-defense.
Claim of Right
Appellant argues that his "good-faith claim of right" to recover stolen property "negated felonious intent." But the claim-of-right defense does not apply to assault with a deadly weapon. "The claim-of-right defense provides that a defendant's good faith belief, even if mistakenly held, that he has a right or claim to property he takes from another negates the felonious intent [the intent to steal] necessary for conviction of theft or robbery." (People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935, 938.)
Furthermore, "the defense is not available where the claim of right to the property is founded in a 'notoriously illegal' transaction. [Citations.]" (People v. Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 953, fn. 5.) Appellant's acquisition of the marijuana and attempt to sell it to Russell were obviously illegal. Appellant claims that, in addition to taking his marijuana, Russell also took his money. But Russell denied taking any money, and the trial court impliedly credited his testimony.
Self-Defense
The defense of self-defense is available only if the defendant actually and reasonably believed in the need to defend against imminent harm. (People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082.) " 'The principles of self-defense are founded in the doctrine of necessity. This foundation gives rise to two closely related rules . . . . First, only that force which is necessary to repel an attack may be used in self-defense; force which exceeds the necessity is not justified. [Citation.] Second, deadly force or force likely to cause great bodily injury may be used only to repel an attack which is in itself deadly or likely to cause great bodily injury . . . .' " (People v. Hardin (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 625, 629-630.)
Russell's testimony alone constitutes substantial evidence that defeats appellant's claim of self-defense. According to Russell, he did not attack appellant and did not possess a weapon. Russell had turned around and was running away from appellant when he slipped and fell to the ground. Appellant stabbed Russell after he had fallen and while he was lying on his back. Based on Russell's testimony, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that appellant did not reasonably believe that the stabbing was necessary to repel an imminent attack that was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. "It is well settled that, absent physical impossibility or inherent improbability, the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a criminal conviction. [Citation.]" (People v. Allen (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 616, 623.)
Here we have more than a single eyewitness. The testimony of the other eyewitnesses to the assault - Rodriguez and Galaviz - corroborates Russell's testimony that appellant was the aggressor and that Russell neither possessed a weapon nor fought back. Thus, the evidence in support of appellant's conviction is not just substantial; it is overwhelming.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: COFFEE, J., PERREN, J.