People v. Lester
| Decision Date | 27 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | F079801 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PHILLIP RAY LESTER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No F19902097. Houry A. Sanderson, Judge.
Jenny M. Brandt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Catherine Tennant Nieto Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Witnesses observed defendant Phillip Ray Lester hit Tauleva Vaielua with a metal baseball bat, causing him to fall to the ground. While Vaielua was still on the ground, defendant hit him again. Vaielua suffered physical injuries from the incident. Defendant claimed he acted out of self-defense because Vaielua had been following defendant with a long metal pole. A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon and found true that he inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court imposed the upper term of four years for the assault conviction, plus an additional three years to run consecutively for the great bodily injury enhancement, for a total aggregate term of seven years' imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant, who is deaf, alleges multiple claims of error he asserts are "entwined with [his] disability." He claims the trial court erred by admitting his statement to police following the incident because his waiver made pursuant to Miranda v Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Defendant also claims, because he is deaf and was not provided a sign language interpreter during his interrogation, his statement to police was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 754, subdivision (k), and his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to its admission under this section. (Further undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.) Next, defendant claims the trial court denied him due process and a fair trial when it excluded testimony regarding the circumstances of his statement. Additionally, defendant contends the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 331, as requested by the defense. Last, defendant claims cumulative error warrants reversal of his conviction. After supplemental briefing, the parties agree the matter should be remanded for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), Assembly Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 567).
We agree the matter should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing, but otherwise affirm the judgment.
Prosecution evidence
Two witnesses testified they heard loud noises and observed defendant and Vaielua (described in testimony as the "Hispanic" or "Mexican" man) in the street circling and going back and forth towards each other like they were going to fight. Defendant was holding a baseball bat and Vaielua was holding a long metal pole. Both witnesses saw defendant hit Vaielua with the baseball bat, causing him to fall to the ground. One witness noted defendant hit Vaielua in the head with the baseball bat. The other witness observed Vaielua raise the metal pole and swing it at defendant first. Defendant caught the pole and continued to hit Vaielua with the bat while he was on the ground.
Two video recordings of the incident from two different angles were played for the jury. Both videos show defendant and Vaielua moving around each other and going back and forth towards each other. The videos show Vaielua moving toward defendant, then defendant hitting him on or near his head with the baseball bat, and Vaielua falling to the ground. The videos also show defendant hitting Vaielua again while Vaielua was lying on the ground. Once defendant started hitting Vaielua, witnesses in their vehicles honked their horns and moved forward towards defendant, who stopped.
Vaielua explained that on the day of the incident he was living in a handmade hut, which defendant came over to and destroyed with a bat. Vaielua did not know defendant prior to this incident, never did anything to defendant, and did not know why defendant destroyed his home. When Vaielua told defendant to stop, he did not stop, but instead showed Vaielua his bat like he was going to hit him. Vaielua found a steel pole and picked it up to defend himself. Vaielua then chased defendant down the road for two to five blocks. Vaielua stated he was following defendant because defendant still had the bat and Vaielua was looking for people to call the police; he did not want defendant to hit somebody or to destroy someone else's hut. Vaielua testified that he did not start the fight. Vaielua admitted that he swung the metal pole at defendant, but stated that it was not to hit him, but to block him and keep him away. According to Vaielua, defendant hit him first, which he blocked with his pole; but the second time defendant hit him, Vaielua fell to the ground.
Vaielua stated he was injured as a result of this incident. He received three separate injuries to his head from being hit by defendant with the bat. Vaielua is now paralyzed on his right side and requires the use of a wheelchair. Vaielua also suffers back pain and groin and leg pain, which he did not have before the incident. At the time of trial, Vaielua was still at the hospital, where he was receiving physical therapy to help him walk.
Defense evidence
Defendant testified with the assistance of two sign language interpreters. Defendant stated, on the day of the incident, he rode his bicycle to a store and locked it outside with a chain. When he came out of the store, he saw two men, one Mexican and one Black, standing next to his bike. He saw one of them cut the chain on his bike. Defendant followed the two men as they walked away with his bicycle. When he caught up with them, defendant confronted them about his bicycle and tried to take it back, but the Mexican man hit his shoulder with a knife. Defendant said he could not see what the two men were doing because they were blocking him, but he believed it involved drugs. Defendant tried to grab his bicycle, but they pushed him away and the Black man left with his bicycle.
According to defendant, the Mexican man (Vaielua) began facing off with him; moving whenever defendant moved. Vaielua picked up a metal pole and started following him. Because Vaielua had a metal pole, defendant picked up a baseball bat he saw laying around so they would be evenly matched. Defendant left the area, but Vaielua kept coming after him. According to defendant, he was afraid Vaielua was going to try to kill him. Defendant testified Vaielua attacked him first, and defendant defended himself by grabbing the metal pole and hitting Vaielua with the bat. On cross-examination, defendant added that he thought Vaielua had hit his head on a rock when he fell to the ground. Defendant stated he only hit Vaielua one time. When he saw Vaielua on the ground, defendant became afraid and left him there. Defendant dropped the bat when the police arrived. He told Detective Eric Hull he hit Vaielua only one time and denied telling the detective he hit Vaielua two times.
Rebuttal evidence
Detective Hull testified he interviewed defendant following the incident. Before starting the interview, Detective Hull was informed defendant was deaf and had a hard time communicating with the initial officer. So, Detective Hull communicated with defendant in writing. On a pad of paper, Detective Hull wrote, "My name is Detective Hull, [h]ave you ever been read or read your Miranda rights?" Defendant responded in writing back, Detective Hull wrote out questions with yes or no responses, but some of defendant's responses were short answers as well. Defendant initially told Detective Hull in writing that he hit Vaielua one time, but later told him he hit Vaielua twice. Defendant pointed to his left arm at the upper bicep shoulder area that looked like an older scab that may have been picked. The written communication between Detective Hull and defendant was entered into evidence as People's exhibit 20.
The jury deliberated for approximately three days, which included a readback of all the testimony presented at trial. The jury found defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true that he inflicted great bodily injury on Vaielua (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)). After noting defendant's background included a lengthy criminal history dating back to young adulthood, and consisting of four felony convictions, the trial court imposed the upper term of four years for the assault conviction, plus three years consecutively for the great bodily injury enhancement, for a total term of seven years in state prison.
I. Admission of Defendant's Written Statement Did Not Violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting his written statements because he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his Miranda rights. Defendant claims the trial court's error in admitting his statements was prejudicial and therefore, his conviction should be reversed. We conclude the statements were properly admitted.
In pretrial motions in limine, defense counsel requested a section 402 hearing before admitting any statements defendant made to Detective Hull. The court reviewed two videotapes of defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial