Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. LA061236 Elizabeth A. Lippitt, Judge.
Ellise R. Nicholson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Shira B. Seigle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity to offenses arising out of an altercation he had with the victims – Hamed Arian and Ahmad Moshen. A jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) The jury also found appellant inflicted great bodily injury on the victims (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that he used a knife in attempting to murder the victims (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The jury determined appellant attempted to murder Arian with premeditation and deliberation but did not find this allegation to be true with respect to Moshen.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The sanity phase trial was waived and the parties stipulated appellant was not sane when he committed the offenses. Appellant was ordered committed to the California Department of Mental Health for placement in a state hospital until such time as sanity was restored with the maximum period of confinement to be life.
Appellant contends the attempted murder convictions should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill. We reject appellant’s contention and affirm the judgment.
II. FACTS
A. Prosecution Evidence
Appellant was a security guard employed by Action Security Consulting Group, Inc. Ahmed Moshen was the operations manager of the company and Hamed Arian was the chief operating officer.
On February 9, 2009, appellant encountered Arian in the main office of the company. Appellant appeared to be acting irrationally. He told Arian, “[A]ll you fucking supervisors are fucking illegal.” After appellant indicated he was an illegal immigrant, Arian told appellant, “Well, if that’s the case, I cannot have you as an employee....” Appellant replied, “That’s fine. I want my check.” Arian instructed appellant to provide Arian with his uniform and keys whereupon appellant would receive his check.
Appellant left the office and returned in 10 or 15 minutes wearing his uniform. He asked to use the restroom and Arian followed appellant to the area of the office that contained the restroom. As he walked, Arian heard someone call his name. When he turned to see who it was, he felt a punch in his lower abdomen. Appellant had stabbed Arian in the midsection of his abdomen, approximately two inches above his waistline.
Ahmed Moshen saw the stabbing. He pushed Arian out of the way and ran towards appellant to try and take the knife away from him. Appellant swung the knife 50 or 60 times as if he was attempting to harm or stab someone. Appellant eventually stabbed Moshen in the neck as the two struggled. When Arian told appellant to put the knife down, appellant replied, “No. Fuck you. I’m going to kill you guys.”
Because blood was flowing “really, really fast” from Moshen’s neck, Arian retrieved a handgun from a desk drawer and pointed it at appellant. Appellant placed the knife down but eventually threw a chair at Arian and paced around the office. When appellant looked at a pair of scissors on a nearby desk, Arian said, “Don’t do that. Don’t do that. You take one more step and I’m going to shoot you.” Appellant took that step and was shot in the chest by Arian.
Appellant ended up leaving the office and lying down in the middle of the street. Arian held him at gunpoint until the police arrived. Both victims required surgery and several days in the hospital due to their stab wounds.
B. Defense
Haig Kojian, a forensic psychologist, interviewed appellant on three occasions. Appellant had been operating in a “psychotic state” since he was 16 years old and on one occasion he was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Kojian concluded appellant had “schizo-affective disorder, bipolar type.” He noted that, prior to the attack on the victims, appellant was experiencing financial and emotional problems. His family sought psychiatric assistance but such assistance did not help appellant. Several days prior to committing the offenses in the instant case, the police were called to respond to appellant’s breakdown but the police did not “take [appellant] in.”
III. DISCUSSION
“‘“To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 104.) The reviewing court is prohibited from reweighing evidence or reassessing a witness’s credibility. (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 37-38.)
To be convicted of attempted murder, the People must prove, among other things, the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim. (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 739.) By using a knife to stab the victims in vital areas of their bodies, requiring both to be hospitalized for days and undergo surgery, appellant manifested an intention to kill. (See People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 561; People v. Moore (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1114.) This, in light of appellant’s express statement, “I’m going to kill you guys, ” constitutes sufficient evidence of intent to kill.
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., KRIEGLER, J.