Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. SWF023210 Edward D. Webster, Judge.
Gerald P. Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Applellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
A jury convicted defendant, Jennie Holderegger, of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), during which she used a deadly weapon (§ 667) and inflicted serious bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). She was sentenced to prison for 7 years.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
She appealed and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
After concluding our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
Facts
On September 29, 2007, defendant and his live-in girlfriend, the victim, got into a verbal argument while in defendant’s car. The victim got out of the car and crossed the street, going into the parking lot of a Moose Lodge. Defendant “gunned” her car across the street and entered the parking lot. As the victim headed towards the lodge, defendant turned and tried to cut him off with her car. She pulled up close enough to him to make him bump into the car and bend over the hood of the car. He stood back up, slammed his hand on the hood, yelled at defendant and shook his fist at her. He walked on, but defendant gunned the car and an eyewitness, who was out of sight of defendant and the victim, heard a loud “whack” on the car, as though it hit an object. A few seconds later, he saw the victim lying on the ground unconscious. The eyewitness called 911. Defendant approached the victim and tried to pull him up, but the eyewitness put his arm up to stop her as he feared the victim had been seriously injured. He told her the police were coming. She got back in her car and drove off. Despite his claim at the preliminary hearing that he turned around and accidentally hit the passenger side mirror with his arm, breaking it, then fell on the ground due to the presence of potholes and sand and not because defendant had hit him with her car, the victim twice told the responding officer and the doctor who treated him that defendant had run him over with her car. The victim sustained a “burst” laceration to the back of his head, which was closed with at least one stitch, a linear laceration to the back of his head, which was closed with staple, and superficial abrasions to his left arm and leg. He left the hospital against medical advice and returned to the home he shared with defendant.
They had been cohabitating for about three years.
The victim’s preliminary hearing testimony was played at trial because he was unavailable.
Discussion
The foregoing facts constitute sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that defendant committed an assault with a deadly weapon, that she used a deadly and dangerous weapon, that the assault involved domestic violence, and that she inflicted serious bodily injury on the victim. The eyewitness’s 911 call was not testimonial, in that its primary purpose was to deal with the contemporaneous emergency, rather than to produce evidence about past events for possible use in a criminal trial. (People v. Cage (2008) 40 Cal.4th 965, 984; People v. Byron (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 657, 675.) Therefore, its admission did not violate Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36.
We have concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RICHLI J. MILLER J.