People v. Canedos

• Decision Date: 21 October 2021
• Docket Number: B307948
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD REYES CANEDOS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RONALD REYES CANEDOS, Defendant and Appellant.

B307948

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

October 21, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MA077847 Shannon Knight, Judge. Affirmed.

Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

1

Defendant and appellant Ronald Reyes Canedos challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, ^[1] § 245, subd. (a)(1).) He argues that we must reduce his conviction to brandishing a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)) because the evidence did not show that he did an act with his knife that by its nature would directly and probably harm the victim. He also contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on brandishing, which he claims was a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon under the expanded accusatory pleading test. We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On December 17, 2019, Canedos went to a home in Palmdale where his wife, O.S., lived with her mother, T.M. Canedos no longer lived with O.S. They had two young children, R.C. and H.C., who also lived with O.S., T.M., and T.M.'s young twin sons.

At around 9:50 p.m. that night, Canedos had an argument with O.S. T.M. heard noises and went into the bedroom to intervene. She saw that Canedos had cornered O.S. and was screaming "say it one more time" at her while holding a large knife. H.C. told sheriff's deputies that night that Canedos told O.S.," '[C]all me loser one more time and then I'm a chop you up.'" According to H.C, Canedos then told T.M.," '[I]f you don't move out of the way so I can leave, I'm gonna end up chopping everybody up.'"

2

T.M. yelled for one of her young sons to call 911, and Canedos said, "[I]f you call the police, I will kill you." T.M. tried to intervene to protect O.S., and the two of them, along with Canedos, made their way out of the bedroom to the hallway. T.M. went to the kitchen and called 911. A recording of the call was played to the jury. During the call, a voice identified as O.S.'s says, "[M]omma stop! He is gonna stab me." Shortly afterward, T.M. tells the operator that Canedos "was trying to stab my daughter."

Canedos left the scene before police arrived and went to his mother's house. Sheriff's deputies discovered the Jeep Canedos was driving at his parents' residence. They searched the vehicle and found a large, sharp butcher knife on the driver's side of the floorboard.

Canedos testified that he had gone to O.S.'s home the morning before the incident to sleep off the effects of methamphetamine that he had used, and that he held a new fishing knife on his chest while he slept. He denied pointing the knife at O.S. or threatening her.

An information charged Canedos with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), two counts of criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and one count of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court granted Canedos's motion for a judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence (§ 1118.1) on one of the counts of criminal threats, and dismissed the other count of criminal threats under section 1385 because the prosecutor elected not to proceed on that count. The jury convicted Canedos of assault with a deadly weapon but acquitted him of dissuading a witness. The court sentenced Canedos to six years eight months in prison. The court

3

imposed the high term of four years for assault with a deadly weapon, plus four consecutive eight-month terms on a prior case after the court found him in violation of his probation.

DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Canedos contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon. In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we ask" 'whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] . . . [W]e must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.]" (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) "Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for' "substantial evidence- that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value"' that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691 .. . .)" (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 804.) The evidence in this case was sufficient to meet this deferential standard.

A person violates section 245, subdivision (a) if he "commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm." The Penal Code defines assault as "an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another." (§ 240.) The defendant need not intend to violate the law or to cause a particular injury. (People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206,

4

214.) Instead, the prosecution must show only that the defendant" 'willfully committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another, i.e., a battery.'" (People v. Golde (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 101, 109.)

Canedos claims that there was insufficient evidence that he committed such an act. He notes that when they testified at trial, Canedos's two children did not remember seeing their father move the knife up and down in a threatening manner. T.M. also testified that Canedos kept the knife by his side and did not point it at O.S. But this testimony contradicted earlier statements by T.M. and the two children to police. The deputy sheriff who responded to the scene testified that Canedos's son R.C. told him that night that "[h]e saw [Canedos] waving the knife up and down towards . . . [O.S.]...