People v. Hankins
| Decision Date | 16 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | C083872 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL CHARLES HANKINS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Michael Charles Hankins appeals from his conviction of aggravated mayhem. He contends (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motions to acquit; (2) substantial evidence does not support his conviction; (3) the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence; and (4) the court erred by not giving a limiting instruction. Defendant also contends we should remand to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike a serious felony enhancement, and we should strike the fines and fees imposed on him due to his inability to pay.
Except to remand to allow defendant to request a hearing on his ability to pay the fines and fees, we affirm the judgment.
Eric Simmons and Sherry Anderson were close friends. On April 15, 2016, they went to a house in Colusa where defendant was residing. Simmons brought along his dogs. Anderson had introduced Simmons to defendant a few weeks earlier.
At the house, defendant, his housemate John, and Anderson began drinking vodka. Defendant was agitated. He yelled at Anderson, yelled and kicked at John, and yelled and kicked at Simmons's dogs. Anderson became upset at defendant's behavior, so she, Simmons, and John left around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m.
The three returned to defendant's residence around 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. that evening. Defendant's attitude had not changed much. He had a folding knife at his side which he would occasionally play with and throw into wood.
Around 9:30 p.m., Simmons decided to leave. He left the house to put his dogs into the car. As he started walking back to the house, he heard Anderson yell, " " Simmons got to the house and inside saw defendant standing about four feet away from Anderson.
Anderson was very intoxicated. Simmons said to her, " " He put his arm around her as she got up and whispered in her ear, " 'We're getting away from this asshole.' " As Simmons walked out the door, he heard "the click" of what sounded like a knife opening.
Outside, Anderson walked ahead of Simmons as they walked to the car. Anderson stopped and said, "Wait a minute." At that moment, Simmons was hit in the back of the head. He fell forward onto Anderson and then onto the ground face down. Simmons testified that after falling onto Anderson, "it's kind of blank, like seeing stars, and then I remember getting up."
When Simmons stood up, he felt blood running down his neck. He saw defendant about six feet away walking away from him and toward the house. Defendant warned Simmons that if he came back, defendant would make sure he killed him.
Simmons got in his car and drove to the nearby home of a friend, Michael Cox. Cox said Simmons "[l]ooked like he got cut." Simmons told Cox, "I got stuck by Little Mike," referring to defendant. Cox gave Simmons directions to the hospital. At the hospital, Simmons told a nurse he "was stabbed or cut" by a knife.
Dr. Thomas Miller treated Simmons for a "right facial laceration." Simmons told Dr. Miller he had been assaulted and cut by a pocket knife. Dr. Miller saw no glass, dirt or fragments of metal in the wound. He believed the cut was made by a sharp edge. The laceration was approximately 10 centimeters long. It ran from Simmons's right cheek onto his neck with a small break at the jawline where the skin was intact. The cut appeared to be a slash-type wound where the cutting instrument entered the skin downward at an angle and the cut's depth tapered at its ends. The cut penetrated completely through the skin into the subcutaneous fat underneath and cut a small artery. It required approximately 20 sutures to close and left a scar on Simmons's face.
Police interviewed Simmons at the hospital. Simmons did not appear to be drunk. He described his attacker as wearing a camouflage hat and a t-shirt which bore a motorcycle club insignia like "RNMC." He also described the location where he was injured.
Police went to defendant's residence. They brought Simmons with them to identify the attacker. The house was dark, as it had no electricity, so officers approached it using flashlights. Defendant answered the door. He was wearing a shirt that matched Simmons's description.
Defendant was brought outside, and officers entered the house to clear it for safety reasons. A few candles lit the inside. Officers contacted Anderson, who was upset and seemed to be under the influence of alcohol. She had swollen eyes, but officers could notdetermine if they were swollen from crying or from an altercation. Her blood-alcohol content later tested at .296 percent.
While speaking with Anderson, an officer noticed and retrieved a black folding knife on the floor. Human blood was later found on the knife. DNA from the knife's blade and handle matched Simmons's DNA profile. DNA from the knife's textured grip matched defendant's DNA profile.
Outside the home, officers noticed defendant was wearing an empty knife holster on his belt. They found a fixed blade knife on a small shelf a few feet away from the front door. No blood was found on that knife. An officer found drying blood on the ground where Simmons was attacked.
Days later, defendant called his mother from jail. He told her he had been seeing Anderson. He asked her if she had been able to get his stuff "out of there." His mother said, "Most of it." He asked if his knife was there. His mother did not know.
Defendant also called a friend. He admitted hitting Simmons by telling his friend that any "little nick or whatever was incidental contact," and that he had blood on his hand from punching Simmons. He also admitted having a pocket knife that he did not "really keep" in his pocket unless he was working.
A jury found defendant guilty of aggravated mayhem. (Pen. Code, § 205; unless otherwise stated, statutory section references are to the Penal Code.) It also found that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction that constituted a prior strike. (§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (d), (e).)
The trial court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of 19 years to life, as follows: seven years to life, doubled, for aggravated mayhem plus a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony.
At the end of the prosecution's case-in-chief and again after he rested his own case, defendant moved for an acquittal under section 1118.1 on the charge of aggravated mayhem. He claimed insufficient evidence showed he harbored the specific intent necessary to be convicted of that crime. The trial court denied the motion both times, ruling that substantial evidence supported the allegation that defendant specifically intended to disfigure Simmons. Defendant contends the trial court erred in its rulings, claiming there was insufficient evidence of a specific intent to maim.
To address defendant's contention, we review the state of the evidence as of the time the motion for acquittal was brought and in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether substantial evidence existed on which a reasonable trier of fact could find defendant guilty of aggravated mayhem beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1182-1183, abrogated on other grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216.) We look for substantial direct or circumstantial evidence that defendant committed the crime. (People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1162.)
Defendant is guilty of aggravated mayhem if he "unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person, intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another human being . . . ." (§ 205.) (People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 195.) "[E]vidence of a 'controlled and directed' attack or an attack of 'focused or limited scope' may provide substantial evidence of such specific intent." (People v. Quintero, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1162.)
Defendant contends insufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that he acted with the specific intent to maim Simmons. We disagree. At the time of each motion for acquittal, the jury had substantial evidence showing defendant cut Simmons with the specific intent to maim him. At the close of the prosecution's case, the evidence showed that Simmons returned to the house after hearing Anderson yell that defendant hurt her. Defendant was seeing Anderson. Simmons put his arm around her waist and escorted her out of the house, telling her defendant was an "asshole." Simmons...
To continue reading
Request your trial