Opinion
C081570
10-03-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TREV PETER HOLMES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. P15CRF0353)
Defendant Trev Peter Holmes contends there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for kidnapping and corporal injury to a former cohabitant. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A
September 10, 2015, Incident
On September 10, 2015, defendant and Emma W. spent the night at the apartment of Katherine H. Katherine H., who had an open child welfare case and was pregnant, had only known Emma and defendant for a week. Katherine H. testified at trial she thought Emma was "an amazing person," but she did not get along with defendant because she "felt he had anger issues." Every time Katherine H. saw Emma, she had bruises on her. Katherine H. testified she had a glass of wine and had taken methamphetamine that day. Emma had also drunk half a pint of whiskey.
Katherine H. testified Emma and defendant left at 1:00 p.m. to go to the store to get dinner and returned at 3:00 p.m. Although Emma had been "buzzed" when she left, she seemed more sober when she returned. Katherine H. and Emma were looking at clothes for Katherine H.'s daughter when defendant became upset, "got in [Emma's] face," and began arguing with Emma about the source of her money. Emma and defendant began grabbing and pushing each other, with defendant grabbing her by the hair several times. Defendant grabbed Emma by the shoulder, picked up a bottle of alcohol and said, "this is for if we make up later," and started to leave. Emma asked defendant to stop, pushed him away, and told him to leave, indicating she did not want to leave with him. Defendant grabbed Emma by the hair and lifted her off the ground. Emma again suggested they leave, saying, "Please don't do this here." Defendant carried Emma downstairs and outside the apartment, which was on the second floor. Emma appeared scared and asked defendant to let her go. Defendant picked her up by her legs and threw her in the car. Emma tried to climb out of the car through the other door, but defendant threw her back into the car again. Katherine H. testified she saw Emma screaming and trying to kick out the windows as defendant started the car and drove off.
William Liapes testified that, on September 10, 2015, a white car driven by defendant pulled up and stopped close to Liapes's house. Defendant, who seemed "full of anger," said he had run out of gas and asked for some gas, but Liapes refused and asked him to leave. Defendant was yelling, "Get out of my car, get out of my life," at Emma, who was in the backseat, crying. She was "huddled down in the back" and appeared to be afraid to sit up. After five minutes, defendant retrieved a gas can from the trunk and walked down the road. Emma got out of the car but seemed to be in "pretty bad shape." She was upset, had red marks all over her, and "just didn't look good at all." Liapes thought she seemed "beat down somehow mentally, or physically and mentally."
Rachel Wheeler, Liapes's girlfriend, testified she came out to help Emma, who would not stop crying. Emma told Wheeler, "[h]e's been hitting me all day. I was in the back of the car and he punched me and we would drive around." Emma also complained of severe head pain and said it felt like her jaw was broken. Wheeler, who is a registered nurse, did not see anything indicating Emma had been beaten all day. Still, Wheeler noticed Emma was puffy and red, suggesting she "might have been hit." Wheeler called 911 as she was sitting with Emma, and a recording of the 911 call was played for the jury. Both Wheeler and Emma spoke with the 911 operator. Through Wheeler, Emma told the 911 operator that defendant had abducted her from a friend's house an hour and a half ago. Emma also told the 911 operator defendant had beaten her. Emma warned defendant might be carrying a pocketknife and asked for an ambulance.
The police arrived, and Deputy Brick Bradley testified he observed the car had a broken rear left window and glass shards on the left rear seat.
Deputy Adam Stockeland testified he met Emma at the hospital that evening. When he arrived, Emma was sitting up with a cervical collar around her neck. Emma seemed "very upset," had been crying, and was red in the face. Emma told Deputy Stockeland she had been at Katherine H.'s apartment and argued with defendant. Against her wishes, defendant carried her and her belongings out to the car and threw her in the backseat of the car. Emma said, "[l]et me go" and tried unsuccessfully to get out "numerous times." Defendant pulled her hair and locked the doors to prevent her from leaving, held her mouth shut so she could not scream, and punched her "all over the face." Emma also told Deputy Stockeland she broke out a window to try to get out of the vehicle. When they finally stopped near Liapes's home, defendant took his hand and placed it under her jaw, preventing her from speaking. Deputy Stockeland took photos showing red marks on Emma's arms, hands, face, and head, which were shown to the jury. Emma told Deputy Stockeland she thought her jaw was broken and she had pain in her arm, face, and mouth.
B
September 12, 2015, Incident
Ronald Hardy testified at trial that, on September 12, 2015, Emma and Jolene Von Millanich were staying with him. Defendant arrived at Hardy's house at 1:00 a.m. and stood at the door. Emma appeared afraid as she walked toward the door. Von Millanich testified Emma asked her to call the police if necessary. Hardy testified he saw defendant slap Emma in the back of the head with his open hand, grab her by the hair with one hand, and start running. Emma ran along with defendant as he continued to hold her by the hair and drag her out of the house. Hardy feared for Emma's life and worried defendant was taking her against her will, especially since she had previously shown him bruises and bumps and told him "things" about defendant. Hardy grabbed a baseball bat and ran out of the house after them. Hardy found Emma on the ground after exiting the house, with defendant trying to pull her up by her arm. As Hardy approached, defendant hit him in the face with a ladder, and he fell. Defendant threw the ladder on top of Hardy and ran away with Emma. Emma later told Hardy she left to keep any altercation out of the house.
The police arrived, and Emma told Deputy Blake Braafladt that defendant yelled at her through a window and demanded she speak with him. Emma told Deputy Braafladt she asked Von Millanich to call the police if anything happened. In addition, Emma said defendant grabbed her hair, dragged her along a walkway, and "pushed her around" while they were outside, causing her to trip and fall. Deputy Braafladt observed redness on Emma's face, marks and redness on her chest area, and a bruise on her right shoulder, although the injuries appeared to be preexisting. In Deputy Braafladt's experience, Emma did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Sergeant Troy Morton testified that, the night of the incident, Emma told him defendant had pulled her hair. Emma also said she loved defendant and would recant her story and claim to have lied.
C
Emma's Trial Testimony
At trial, Emma testified she and defendant had been engaged for one year. She loved him and did not want him to get in any trouble. Emma testified that, on September 10, 2015, she was helping Katherine H. paint and make the apartment look better, since Katherine H. was trying to get her children back. Emma had been drinking and was "coming down" from doing drugs the night before. Emma testified she "get[s] mean" when she gets drunk, and she was yelling and "getting kind of mean" to defendant that day. Emma and defendant wanted to leave so they did not "cause any problems" for Katherine H. or make "a big scene there." She fell as they were leaving, although "[n]othing happened" between her and defendant. She also testified it took two people to start the car due to a bad starter, and she was never forced to stay in the car against her will.
Emma testified that, after they left Katherine H.'s apartment, defendant dropped her off at a bar and left. Emma stayed outside, where she finished a bottle of vodka and hung out with her friend "Ron." She also got into a fight at the bar and hurt her jaw, so defendant picked her up. She started "being mean" to defendant and tried to kick him, but ended up hitting and breaking the back window on the driver's side. Defendant continued driving, and the car ended up running out of gas in someone's driveway. Defendant left to get gas, but Emma refused to go with him. Emma exited the car, and a man and a woman said she and defendant could not stay there. Emma then started telling them "stories" that defendant had "done things" to her. The two individuals called the police, and emergency personnel took Emma to the hospital. Emma testified she did not remember much because she was drunk.
Emma testified she made up the story she told to the police at the hospital, including that defendant made her leave Katherine H.'s apartment and that he was hitting her. Emma testified she lied because she feared getting into trouble for kicking defendant and breaking his car window. Also, she was upset because she feared defendant was being unfaithful. She also "probably" told the deputy defendant ripped her hair, held her mouth shut so she could not scream, and injured her.
Emma testified that, on September 12, 2015, she and Von Millanich had been living at Ronald Hardy's house for a few days. During the day, Emma invited defendant over via social media, and defendant arrived in the evening and asked to talk with her. He did not seem angry, and Emma went outside to speak with him. Hardy came out of the house and yelled for defendant to leave, so Emma and defendant started walking. Emma tripped on some bricks and fell, and defendant helped her. Emma testified defendant did not trip her. Emma saw Hardy approaching, and defendant moved away from her. Emma heard scuffling, and then defendant returned and left with Emma. Emma eventually returned to Hardy's house without defendant, so she could retrieve her belongings and "calm things down."
Emma also testified about an argument she had with defendant in late August 2015. Defendant and Emma were living together at the time, and Emma was refusing to move with defendant to a new place. Emma testified there was no violence between her and defendant that day, but defendant ended up setting Emma's clothes on fire in the driveway. Emma testified her landlord was incorrect when she told police that defendant broke open the back door to the residence to get to Emma. In addition, Emma testified her friend, Michelle, was incorrect when she told police there had been physical violence between Emma and defendant the day before, where defendant pushed her against the wall with the back of his wrist.
On January 13, 2016, defendant pled no contest to resisting a police officer on September 12, 2015. On January 19, 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of kidnapping Emma on September 10, 2015, corporal injury on a former cohabitant on September 10, 2015, and battery against a fiancée. On February 29, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate five years in state prison.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends his convictions for inflicting corporal injury on a former cohabitant and kidnapping are unsupported by substantial evidence. " '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. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 701.) A reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility. (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) If the evidence reasonably justifies the jury's findings, we may not reverse the judgment simply because the circumstances reasonably might also be reconciled with a contrary finding. (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 945.)
I
Inflicting Corporal Injury On A Cohabitant
Penal Code Section 273.5, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part that any person who willfully inflicts "corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a victim described in subdivision (b)" of the section is guilty of a felony. Section 273.5, subdivision (d) defines "traumatic condition" to mean "a condition of the body, such as a wound, or external or internal injury, including, but not limited to, injury as a result of strangulation or suffocation, whether of a minor or serious nature, caused by physical force." (§ 273.5, subd. (d); see also People v. Wilkins (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 761, 771 [§ 273.5 is "violated when the defendant inflicts even 'minor' injury"].)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Citing People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078 and People v. Abrego (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 133, defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to establish he inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition because none of the witnesses at trial described any physical injury to Emma caused by defendant. In Beasley, the defendant was convicted of 11 counts of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant. (Beasley, at p. 1084.) The defendant challenged three of these counts, in which he beat the victim with a rod on three separate occasions. (Id. at p. 1085.) The only witness was the victim, who testified she sustained bruises during the first incident due to being beaten with a rod. (Ibid.) The appellate court concluded this was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction on this count. (Id. at pp. 1085-1086.) With respect to the other two occasions, the victim testified she did not know whether she suffered additional bruises or injury during the second incident, and she was never asked whether she suffered an injury from the third incident. (Ibid.) The court concluded this was insufficient to establish the victim suffered a traumatic condition and reversed the convictions. (Id. at pp. 1086, 1093.)
In Abrego, the defendant slapped or punched the victim five times in the face and head. (People v. Abrego, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 135.) Although the victim told a police officer the day of the incident that she felt pain and tenderness where she had been hit, the officer did not notice any injury. (Ibid.) At trial, the victim testified that she neither suffered any pain nor injury during the incident, and she did not seek medical treatment. (Id. at p. 136.) The appellate court concluded the victim's pain was not an injury and there was insufficient evidence the victim suffered a traumatic condition. (Id. at p. 138.)
Unlike Beasley and Abrego, the record contains ample evidence that defendant inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition to Emma. Emma's statements the day of the incident indicate she was injured, including requesting an ambulance and complaining to Deputy Stockeland of a broken jaw and pain in her arm, face, and mouth. In addition, the jury was shown Deputy Stockeland's photos from the hospital just after the incident, showing red marks on Emma's arms, hands, face, and head. Liapes also testified Emma had red marks all over her. Although Wheeler did not observe any bleeding as might be typical in someone who was beaten all day, she noticed little breaks on Emma's skin, puffiness, and redness, which suggested Emma "might have been hit." Although the marks may have been minor, they were well within the definition of a traumatic condition under section 273.5, subdivision (d). (See People v. Beasley, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 [bruising constitutes a traumatic condition for purposes of § 273.5].) Moreover, these injuries were consistent with Emma's statements to Wheeler and Deputy Stockeland that defendant punched her and held her mouth so she could not scream, and thus supports a reasonable inference defendant inflicted the red marks on Emma during the incident. The jury could reasonably disbelieve Emma's contrary testimony at trial that she sustained injuries while fighting at a bar. As such, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict.
II
Kidnapping
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for kidnapping because the record establishes Emma consented to leaving Katherine H.'s apartment. In addition, defendant argues he reasonably and actually believed Emma consented to accompany him when he left Katherine H.'s apartment and when he picked her up at the bar. Defendant points to Emma's testimony at trial that she wanted to leave Katherine H.'s apartment and "[n]othing happened" between her and defendant as they were leaving. In addition, argues defendant, Emma testified it took two people to start the car due to a bad starter and she was never forced to stay in the car against her will. We decline defendant's invitation to reweigh the evidence.
A defendant commits simple kidnapping if he "forcibly, or by any other means of instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any person in this state, and carries the person . . . into another part of the same county." (§ 207, subd. (a).) In order " 'to prove the crime of kidnapping, the prosecution must prove three elements: (1) a person was unlawfully moved by the use of physical force or fear; (2) the movement was without the person's consent; and (3) the movement of the person was for a substantial distance.' " (People v. Dalerio (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 775, 781.) Physical compulsion is not required. (People v. Majors (2004) 33 Cal.4th 321, 326-327.) "Rather, where the victim reasonably feels compelled under the circumstances to comply with the defendant's orders under fear of harm or injury from the defendant, the asportation is forcible." (People v. Alvarez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 989, 1002.) A defendant's "reasonable and good faith belief that the victim has voluntarily consented to accompany him constitutes a complete defense to the charge of kidnapping." (People v. Isitt (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 23, 28.)
Although Emma testified at trial that she wanted to leave Katherine H.'s apartment to avoid causing a scene, other witnesses testified she did not leave voluntarily. Katherine H. testified Emma begged defendant to not "do this" in Katherine H.'s apartment, and it did not appear to Katherine H. that Emma wanted to leave when defendant grabbed her by the hair and dragged her from the apartment. Katherine H. could see the "fear in [Emma's] eyes," and Emma was asking defendant to "[l]et [her] go." Katherine H. testified defendant threw Emma into the car and prevented her from exiting the car. As defendant drove off, Katherine H. watched Emma screaming and trying to kick out the windows.
In addition, the jury could reasonably disbelieve Emma's trial testimony in favor of Emma's statements the day of the incident, including her statement to Wheeler and the 911 operator that she had been abducted from Katherine H.'s apartment. Emma also told Deputy Stockeland that defendant carried her out of Katherine H.'s apartment against her wishes and denied her requests to let her go. Furthermore, Emma told Deputy Stockeland that defendant prevented her from leaving by pulling her hair, locking the car doors, and holding her mouth shut so she could not scream. Emma also told Deputy Stockeland she kicked out a window to try to get out of the vehicle. This version of events is consistent with Deputy Bradley's testimony that the police found the car with a broken rear left window and glass shards on the left rear seat. As such, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding defendant kidnapped Emma.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, J. /s/_________
Duarte, J.