Error and/or relief
Though we find sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the abstract of judgment contains errors that must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. The search condition should be modified to delete the requirement that the defendant subject her computers and recordable media to searches; (2) the alcohol conditions should be deleted; and (3) the total fines should be reduced from $1,260 to $740.
[Gary note: there was no legal analysis presented on the probation conditions issues, because the People agreed they were improper, and the court accepted the concession without further discussion or citation to authority.]First Holding:
The abstract of judgment contains errors that must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment. The search condition should be modified to delete the requirement that the defendant subject her computers and recordable media to searches; (2) the alcohol conditions should be deleted; and (3) the total fines should be reduced from $1,260 to $740.
[GARY note: the appellate court did not cite authority for its order to correct the abstract of judgment, but there is considerable authority that the court could have relied on, which I set forth below:]Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Second Holding:
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is 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.
The court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we consider only the evidence presented and we disregard the jury’s not guilty or not true findings on other counts or enhancements.
Authority:
Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319
People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578
People v. Price (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 409, 452–453
People v. Miranda (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 398, 405–406
Third Holding:
Great bodily injury under section 245 is defined as an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm. A fine line can divide an injury from being significant or substantial from an injury that does not quite meet the description. Where to draw that line is for the jury to decide. Great bodily injury can include contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and bruising.
The use of hands or fist alone has been held sufficient to support a conviction of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Whether a fist used in striking a person would be likely to cause great bodily injury is to be determined by the force of the impact, the manner in which it was used and the circumstances under which force was applied.
Whether the force used by the defendant was likely to produce great bodily injury is a question for the trier of fact to decide. In this context, likely to produce great bodily injury means more than a mere possibility. The evidence must prove more than a mere possibility that the force actually used would result in greater than moderate harm.
Authority:
People v. Wyatt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 694, 702
People v. Sandoval (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 357, 361 [noting that great bodily injury is significant or substantial physical injury that is more than minor or moderate]
People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 64
People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 752
People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 464
People v. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169, 176
People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519, 527-528
People v. Thiel (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1201, 1213
In re Nirran W. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1161–1162 [rejecting defendant’s argument that one blow to the face of the victim could not have been likely to cause great bodily injury]
People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028 [the statute focuses on force likely to produce great bodily injury; whether the victim in fact suffers any harm is immaterial]