Opinion
B292989
02-20-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID CALDERON, Defendant and Appellant.
Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA096546) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Vincent H. Okamoto, Judge. Affirmed. Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County charged defendant and appellant David Calderon with injuring a spouse, cohabitant, girlfriend, or child's parent after a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(2) ) (count 1); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)) (count 2); and false imprisonment (§ 236) (count 3). A jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor spousal battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) on count 1 and misdemeanor false imprisonment on count 3 (§ 236, subd. (a)). It found defendant not guilty of criminal threats on count 2. The trial court sentenced defendant to 36 months of summary probation on various terms and conditions, including the condition that he serve 180 days in county jail.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On appeal, defendant contends that insufficient evidence supported his misdemeanor false imprisonment conviction. We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Because defendant's sole claim on appeal is that insufficient evidence supported his misdemeanor false imprisonment conviction, we primarily limit our factual recitation to facts relevant to that claim, including other facts as necessary for context.
K.D. testified that she and defendant were in a relationship for about 17 years and had three children together. Throughout their relationship, defendant had been unfaithful.
On June 1, 2017, K.D. and defendant's relationship was "very bad"—they were "practically separated" and there was no possibility of them "being together." At around 7:45 a.m. that morning, K.D. dropped off her son at school. Defendant appeared and held open K.D.'s car door so she had to talk to him. Defendant took K.D.'s cell phone.
K.D. agreed to meet defendant at her house. They left in separate cars. K.D. tried to get away from defendant and did not drive home. Instead, she drove to a store. Defendant found K.D. at the store and parked his car behind hers so she could not leave. Defendant told K.D. that she would not be able to get away and laughed.
K.D. and defendant talked. K.D. then voluntarily went to a restaurant with defendant. Defendant asked K.D. to forgive him. Defendant asked K.D. if he could pick up their children from school. K.D. and defendant picked up the children together, but traveled in separate cars. Defendant then purchased a pizza which he took to K.D.'s home.
After the children finished eating the pizza, defendant told them to play outside. Defendant and K.D. then had a conversation in one of the children's bedroom. Defendant again asked K.D. to forgive him, saying that he loved his family. When K.D. said, "No," defendant became upset and violent.
Defendant stood in front of the bedroom door with "his arms . . . and legs open," preventing K.D. from leaving. K.D. pulled down defendant's arms and tried to leave, but defendant pushed her back towards the bed. K.D. estimated that she attempted to leave and defendant pushed her back about seven or more times.
When K.D. first tried to leave, defendant threw her onto the bed, grabbed her head, and hit her head against the wall. He said that if K.D. did not forgive him, he would not let her leave.
K.D. struggled with defendant. They scratched each other, and "[m]any things happened. Blows, screams and threats." Defendant hit K.D.'s face with his fist. When K.D. raised her arms to prevent defendant from striking her, defendant bit her forearm. After defendant bit K.D., "he [kept] asking for forgiveness."
K.D. again tried to leave. Defendant "got very furious" and threw K.D. on the bed. He then placed her neck in a hold that he said was "sure death." K.D. lost consciousness for about 30 seconds. When she regained consciousness, defendant was crying and fanning her with a towel.
After K.D. regained consciousness, defendant again stood by the door so K.D. could not leave. Still, K.D. tried to leave, and defendant grabbed her by the neck. Defendant said he would rather kill his whole family with a knife than lose them. K.D. told defendant she was afraid he was going to kill her.
At some point, K.D. was able to leave the bedroom. She told defendant that she was going to work the next day and she needed to look in a mirror to determine if she would need makeup to cover the injury he inflicted when he punched her face. Defendant said K.D. could go to her bedroom, but he was going to follow her.
K.D. went to her bedroom and grabbed her cell phone from her dresser (defendant had returned it earlier). K.D. told defendant her makeup was in her car. Defendant said K.D. could go to her car, but he was going with her. K.D. pretended to look for her makeup in the trunk. One of K.D.'s children screamed and distracted defendant. K.D. ran to a laundromat and called the police.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
"'When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains 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.' [Citation.] We determine 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] In so doing, a reviewing court 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.'" (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.) "A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)
When considering a claim that insufficient evidence supported a judgment, we do not reevaluate a witness's credibility. (People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 200.) Witness credibility is a matter for the jury. (People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 585.) B. Analysis
"As defined in section 236, 'False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.' Without more, the conduct described in section 236 is a misdemeanor offense. (§ 237.) If effectuated by 'violence, menace, fraud or deceit,' false imprisonment is elevated to a felony. (§ 237.)" (People v. Henderson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 86, 93, fn. omitted.) "All that is necessary to make out a charge of false imprisonment, a misdemeanor, is that 'the individual be restrained of his liberty without any sufficient complaint or authority therefor, and it may be accomplished by words or acts [together with the requisite intent to confine] which such individual fears to disregard.' [Citations.]" (People v. Haney (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 308, 313.) "'"Any exercise of force, or express or implied threat of force, by which in fact the other person is deprived of his liberty or is compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain, or to go where he does not wish to go, is false imprisonment."' [Citation]" (People v. Babich (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 801, 806.)
The trial court instructed the jury on misdemeanor false imprisonment with CALCRIM No. 1242 as follows:
"The defendant is charged with a lesser included offense of Count 3 with false imprisonment in violation of . . . section 236.
"To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
"1. The defendant intentionally and unlawfully restrained, detained, or confined a person;
"AND
"2. The defendant's act made that person stay or go somewhere against that person's will.
"An act is done against a person's will if that person does not consent to the act. In order to consent, a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the nature of the act."
Defendant contends that his misdemeanor false imprisonment conviction depended on K.D.'s testimony and K.D. lacked credibility. He further contends that because the jury did not convict him of felony false imprisonment—the evidence of which offense defendant concedes was "overwhelming"—it rejected all of K.D.'s testimony leaving insufficient evidence of misdemeanor false imprisonment. We disagree.
Sufficient evidence supported defendant's misdemeanor false imprisonment conviction. K.D. testified that she repeatedly tried to leave her child's bedroom and defendant prevented her from leaving by blocking her path and pushing her away from the door. The jury heard K.D.'s testimony and obviously credited at least part of it. That determination is entitled to deference and compels rejection of defendant's substantial evidence challenge. (Evid. Code, § 411; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1030-1031.)
As for defendant's contention that the jury must have rejected all of K.D.'s testimony because it did not convict him of felony false imprisonment despite overwhelming evidence, the trial court instructed the jury that it "may believe all, part, or none of any witness's testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe." That there was overwhelming evidence of the greater offense and the jury convicted defendant only of the lesser does not mean there is insufficient evidence of the lesser crime. Rather, it suggests the jury's verdict may have been an act of compromise or lenity, which provides no basis for reversal. (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 513.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
KIM, J. We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
BAKER, J.