People v. Lord, C091939
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Writing for the Court | Robie, Acting P. J. |
Citation | 64 Cal.App.5th 241,278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey LORD, Sr., Defendant and Appellant. |
Decision Date | 14 May 2021 |
Docket Number | C091939 |
64 Cal.App.5th 241
278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Jeffrey LORD, Sr., Defendant and Appellant.
C091939
Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
Filed May 14, 2021
Certified for Partial Publication.*
C. Athena Roussos, Sacramento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman, R. Todd Marshall and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Robie, Acting P. J.
A jury found defendant Jeffrey Thomas Lord, Sr., guilty of making criminal threats and obstructing an executive officer by threat or violence. The trial court placed him on probation for five years. He appeals, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for making criminal threats because the threat did not cause the victim sustained fear. He further seeks to have his case remanded for resentencing in light of the new two-year limit on terms of probation for certain felonies. We affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 25, 2018, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Susanville Police Officer Michael Hoover was on patrol when he received notice of a passenger fleeing on foot from a traffic stop. The passenger was known to be defendant's son. Officer Hoover drove toward the site of the traffic stop and, knowing defendant lived close by, parked in a parking lot near defendant's house. Officer Hoover then walked to an alley next to defendant's house, looking for defendant's son. Officer Hoover heard defendant shout from his backyard, "Get out of here or I'll fucking shoot you." Officer Hoover identified himself, saying
he was with the Susanville Police Department. Defendant responded, "I don't care, I'll shoot you." The conversation continued for a few more seconds, along the same lines. Officer Hoover testified he was "concern[ed]"1 by the threat because he knew defendant owned guns.
Around this same time, Lassen County Sheriff's Deputy Michelle Lingenfelter was on patrol nearby and noticed Officer Hoover. She stopped to ask if he needed assistance and heard defendant say from his backyard something like, "[I]f you don't leave around my backyard, I'm going to shoot you." Lassen County Sheriff's Deputy Chad Falchetta also arrived, but did not hear defendant's threats. Defendant returned inside his house and Officer Hoover and Deputy Lingenfelter met Deputy Falchetta in the nearby parking lot.
Three minutes after defendant shouted at Officer Hoover, they heard the sound of a pump-action shotgun racking several times. Officer Hoover yelled, "shotgun" and they took cover behind a dumpster in the alley. Officer Hoover testified he took cover because he thought there would be "a gun fight." Officer Hoover and the deputies could not see anyone in defendant's backyard; they saw debris someone could hide behind. Officer Hoover used his flashlight to see the back door of the house, but could only see a metal security screen door. Because the light reflected off it, he could not see whether the main door was open or closed. Officer Hoover and the deputies remained behind the dumpster for less than five minutes. They checked the area with flashlights again to be sure it was safe, then returned to their patrol cars "quickly."
Officer Hoover returned to the station and called the Susanville Police Chief. Then, he began preparing a search warrant for defendant's house. When asked why he did not immediately search the house or arrest defendant, Officer Hoover explained that there were several factors to consider, including that he was one of only two officers on duty that night. Upon a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Flores, F081903
...609, 627, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 548 ; People v. Czirban (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1073, 1095, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ; People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ; 77 Cal.App.5th 432 People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1072–1073, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, review granted June......
-
People v. Pinedo, F078442
...No. 1950,10 which shortened the length of probation for many offenders, and concluded the Estrada rule applies. ( People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ( Lord ); People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1072–1073, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, review granted June 30......
-
People v. Czirban, H047748
...can modify Czirban's probation. We concur. (See Sims, supra , 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 964, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ; People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245–246, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642.) Thus, we will reverse the order of probation and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing to mo......
-
Kuhnel v. Superior Court, A163307
...1073, 1095, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ; People v. Schulz (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 887, 894–895, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 ; People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245–246, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ; People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1071–1074, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, review granted June 30, 2021, S......
-
People v. Flores, F081903
...609, 627, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 548 ; People v. Czirban (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1073, 1095, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ; People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ; 77 Cal.App.5th 432 People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1072–1073, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, review granted June......
-
People v. Pinedo, F078442
...No. 1950,10 which shortened the length of probation for many offenders, and concluded the Estrada rule applies. ( People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ( Lord ); People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1072–1073, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, review granted June 30......
-
People v. Czirban, H047748
...can modify Czirban's probation. We concur. (See Sims, supra , 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 964, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 792 ; People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245–246, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642.) Thus, we will reverse the order of probation and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing to mo......
-
Kuhnel v. Superior Court, A163307
...1073, 1095, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ; People v. Schulz (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 887, 894–895, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 ; People v. Lord (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 241, 245–246, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ; People v. Stewart (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1071–1074, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, review granted June 30, 2021, S......