People v. Hale
| Decision Date | 22 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | D030826,Nos. D028915,s. D028915 |
| Citation | 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 904,75 Cal.App.4th 94 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7895, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7950, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,001, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,109 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Godoy Anthony HALE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Christopher Blake, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Laura W. Halgren and Arlene Aquintey Sevidal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Godoy Anthony Hale appeals judgments following two jury trials. In the first trial, a jury convicted Hale of: (1) torture (PEN.CODE, § 206)2; (2) first degree burglary (§ 459); (3) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); (4) making a terrorist threat (§ 422); and (5) stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)). In the second trial, a jury convicted Hale of one count of solicitation of murder (§ 653f, subd. (b)) and acquitted him of a second count of the same crime.
On appeal, Hale contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for torture; (2) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument by force likely to produce great bodily injury is a lesser included offense of torture, and therefore he was improperly convicted of both crimes; (3) in the first trial, his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to move to exclude statements he made to a cellmate; (4) in the second trial, the trial court erroneously denied Hale's motion to exclude statements he made to an investigator posing as a hitman; (5) the sentence for terrorist threats should be stayed pursuant to section 654; (6) the punishment for torture is a determinate sentence, therefore the trial court erred by failing to select it as the base term; and (7) the trial court made calculation errors when computing Hale's presentence custody credits.
We conclude only appellant's contention regarding calculation of presentence credits has merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in all respects save the matter of custody credits.
Roanne Bracks 3 and her daughter Alexis were sharing an apartment in Mission Valley with Priti Pal. In January 1996, Bracks met Hale while both were students at University of California San Diego, and they started dating. Hale knew that Bracks previously had a romantic relationship with Lamont Horton and that Horton was Alexis's father.
In early 1996 at Hale's apartment, Bracks was arguing with Horton on the telephone. Hale grabbed the receiver from Bracks and shouted to Horton: "This is my girlfriend now," "You don't talk to her that way," and "I'll meet you somewhere." They planned to meet and fight at Bracks's apartment.
Bracks and Hale drove to Bracks's apartment, however Horton did not show up. Later, Horton telephoned them, and Hale told Horton: and Later that same day Bracks noticed Hale had a metal pipe in his pants pocket.
Bracks continued to date Hale, however Hale became increasingly possessive and controlling. In April 1996, Bracks criticized Hale for leaving a wet towel on the bathroom floor. Hale became enraged and said: "Don't tell me what to do," and Bracks asked if he was threatening to hit her, and Hale responded: "Just shut up," and Hale grabbed Bracks and held her in a "neck lock," causing her lip to bleed. Bracks's daughter was in the room and started to cry. Hale finally let Bracks go, and she ordered him out of her apartment.
Hale and Bracks's relationship did not improve, and they continued to argue. By May 15, 1996, Bracks ended the relationship. Hale pleaded with Bracks to reconsider but Bracks refused. Hale told her "You're pissing me off," "You don't want to be my enemy," "I don't have time for you anyway," and "I got bitches lined up."
On May 24, 1996, Bracks discovered a brick had been thrown through her car's rear windshield and two tires had been slashed. When Bracks went to her car to put plastic over the broken windshield, she noticed Hale's car parked nearby, and she walked towards it to see if Hale was inside. As she approached, Hale's car sped away. Although she was unable to clearly see the driver through the tinted windows, the body, face and nose resembled Hale. Bracks was frightened and she telephoned Horton asking him to come over.
Later that evening, Bracks received a message from Hale on her answering machine: This message terrified Bracks. She borrowed her roommate's car, and Bracks, Horton and their daughter Alexis drove to her brother's residence; Horton's van remained in the parking lot of Bracks's apartment.
Later that evening just before midnight, Randolph Wood, the security guard for Bracks's apartment complex, observed a thin black male carrying a tire iron. Wood called the police; while waiting for the police to arrive, Wood saw the man with the tire iron enter a car with license number 3NIS381. 4 Wood then noticed the lug nuts to Horton's van had been removed.
That same evening, Bracks, Horton and Alexis arrived at the residence of Bracks's brother. Horton asked Bracks to show him where Hale lived. They drove to Hale's apartment and briefly parked nearby. Just as they started to leave, Hale arrived in his car and swerved as if to hit them. Hale pursued them and cornered their car in a driveway.
Horton and Hale exited their vehicles. Horton had a gun and fired a shot towards the back window of Hale's car. Hale threw a metal pipe at Horton. Horton fired two shots, one of which hit Hale in the back. Hale and Horton fought over the pipe.
The police were summoned. While Horton was being arrested, Hale said to Bracks: "You're going to have a horrible life," "You're friend is going away for murder, attempted murder," and "Your daughter is going to grow up without a father." Hale then said to Bracks in a threatening tone "I am going to kill you, bitch," and he laughed.
Horton was charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Hale told Deputy District Attorney Lorraine Rooney he would drop the charges against Horton if she prosecuted Bracks instead. Rooney explained to Hale there was no evidence Bracks had committed any crime. Horton responded that "wasn't a problem, that the situation would be cured" and "[o]ther people [would] take care of [the problem]."
Rooney confronted Hale about several discrepancies in his description of events on the night of the shooting. Hale admitted to Rooney he had removed the lug nuts from Horton's van. Hale later threatened Rooney if she did not prosecute Bracks he would refuse to testify at Horton's trial; he further threatened to sue the district attorney's office and inform the media about the case.
Horton pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and received a one-year jail sentence. Horton and Bracks became engaged to be married, and she kept a wedding planning book, entering the names, telephone numbers and addresses for potential guests.
The day after the shooting, Bracks and Pal were at their apartment. More than 25 hang-up calls were received. In an attempt to determine who was placing the hang-up calls, Pal pressed "star 69," a custom telephone calling feature which dials the number of the last call received; the person answering the call said "[t]his is Sharp Hospital." Hale had been taken to Sharp Hospital after the shooting; Bracks believed Hale was placing the calls, and she was extremely frightened. Bracks reported the hang-up calls to the police, and they advised her to move out of the apartment immediately. Shortly thereafter, Bracks, Alexis and Pal moved into the home of Bracks's Aunt Kathy Graham in Alpine.
Bracks kept both her pager and cellular telephone numbers. She received many pages with the message "187" which she knew to be a Penal Code section number associated with murder. She also received pages that read "60004-187," and she associated the first five numbers with Godoy, Hale's first name. 5
On June 7, 1996, Hale called Bracks on her cellular phone. He told her "You know I'm going to kill you when I see you, right?" He threatened to "fuck [Bracks] up real good," and he said he "had ten niggers ready to pop [Horton] when they released him from jail."
On August 5, Bracks received a page from a number she did not recognize; she dialed the number and Hale answered. At first he sounded calm and peaceful, and he said he wanted to talk to her in person. Bracks refused, and Hale responded: "When I see you, I'm going to bust your fucking head with a hammer." Bracks changed her pager and cellular phone numbers, and she did not receive any more "187" pages or threatening calls from Hale.
In late August, Bracks, her mother and Alexis moved to El Cajon. They again tried to keep their location a secret. In September, Bracks began...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartwright v. Fox
...in section 206, "focuses on the mental state of the perpetrator and not the actual pain inflicted" on the victim. (People v. Hale (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 94, 108 (Hale).) Section 206 does not require permanent, disabling, or disfiguring injuries, or proof that the victim suffered pain. (Peopl......
-
Gonzales v. Cash, 1:11-cv-01644-BAM (HC)
...does not require that the defendant acted with premeditation or deliberation or had the intent to inflict prolonged pain. (People v. Hale (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 94, 107.) Direct evidence of specific intent is rarely available, although the circumstances surrounding the offense or other circu......
-
People v. Pre
...as defined in section 206 focuses on the mental state of the perpetrator and not the actual pain inflicted." (People v. Hale (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 94, 108, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 904.) Section 206 does not require permanent, disabling, or disfiguring injuries; "[s]ection 206 only requires `great bo......
-
People v. Hood
...168 Cal.App.4th 432, 436, 440, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 582 [broken tooth, wounds on eyebrow and lips requiring sutures]; People v. Hale (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 94, 108, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 904 [broken teeth, split lip, and cut under eye]; People v. Bustos (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1747, 1755, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 11......