People v. Waite
| Decision Date | 09 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | H046785 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOC C. WAITE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 18CR06376)
Following a trial, a jury found defendant Doc C. Waite guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 (count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) (count 2), and trespass by entering and occupying property (§ 602, subd. (m) [hereafter 602(m)]) (count 3). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of two years.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) admitting over objection, photographic evidence of a prior assault victim's injuries; and (2) failing to give the correct instruction for the crime charged in count 3, a violation of section 602.1, subdivision (a) (hereafter 602.1(a)). Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), defendant also claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to object on due process grounds to the imposition of a court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373,subd. (a)(1))—sometimes called the criminal conviction assessment—and a restitution fine (§1202.4, subds. (b), (c)) due to his inability to pay.
We find no reversible error. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
R.E. testified that he was a deacon in his church, the Watsonville Seventh Day Adventist Church. The church held services on Saturdays. R.E. attended services there every weekend.
At trial, R.E. stated that people were not allowed to sleep or stay on church grounds and that sanitation and safety concerns were the reasons for the unwritten policy. The church had had issues with homeless people making fires, going to the bathroom, leaving trash and needles, and camping out on its property. On average, the deacon had had to ask someone to leave once a week. In connection with those requests, there had never been an assault, prior to the incident with defendant. R.E. usually referred people to the Salvation Army, where his wife and he volunteered once a month.
On Saturdays, R.E., who had keys to the church building, arrived at the church between 8:10 a.m. and 8:20 a.m. to open it up. Church services began at 9:30 a.m. Generally, the deacon did "a quick walk-around" and picked up debris. People sometimes parked there on Friday nights and left their "drinking containers on the ground." He routinely cleaned up the front entrance and the stairwell, removed leaves that had accumulated there, and made sure the heaters were on.
Prior to October 6, 2018, R.E. had become familiar with defendant but did not know his name. Approximately five months before October 6, 2018, in the early evening, R.E. had found defendant camped out in a corner of the church under the eaves. His belongings were alongside his bedding. There were blankets, clothes, and open food containers. On that occasion, the deacon had told defendant that he could not stay there.Defendant had responded that the pastor had given him permission to stay. According to R.E., the pastor never gave permission to stay to people and had in fact asked him to deal with issue of people staying or sleeping on church grounds.
When R.E. discovered defendant at the church the next evening, R.E. again told defendant that could not stay there. After R.E. discovered defendant at the church on the third evening, R.E. warned defendant that he was going to return at 3:00 a.m., and defendant said that he would be gone. When R.E. returned at 3:00 a.m., defendant was still there. Defendant told R.E. that he would be gone by 5:00 a.m. R.E. warned that the police would be involved if defendant was still there at 5:00 a.m. When R.E. returned at 5:00 a.m., defendant was gone.
Subsequently and before October 6, 2018, R.E. once saw defendant in the church's lobby as he came out of the bathroom. R.E. had never seen defendant in the church's worship area.
When R.E. arrived at the church on October 6, 2018, he discovered defendant near the church steps. R.E. recognized defendant from their prior interactions. Defendant had possessions on the ground; some of his belongings were in a Target shopping cart. R.E. saw a lot of clothes and trash. R.E. told defendant that he could not stay there and suggested that he go to the Salvation Army. Defendant indicated that he could not follow its rules, and R.E. responded that the church had rules and he could not stay. At this point, defendant seemed to be getting agitated.
At trial, R.E. testified that he looked away from the defendant and turned his body to point out all the trash. R.E. felt something hit him in the head and a sharp pain; he thought he was going to pass out. R.E. heard a "clunk" and "the sound of metal hitting the cement." When he looked, he saw a pipe. Defendant then charged him "like a football player" and ran him into a wall. Defendant pinned R.E. against a railing, which resulted in some bruising to R.E.'s back. With his right hand, defendant grabbed R.E.'s groin and squeezed, causing pain to R.E. R.E. "grabbed [defendant's] t-shirt and put it partly over his head, whirled him around and ran him into the bushes." R.E. picked up the pipe and said, "[I]t's your turn now." But R.E. did not hit defendant with the pipe. Instead, R.E. told defendant that he was calling the police. Defendant replied, "[G]ood luck, they're not gonna do anything." R.E. went into the church and called 911. The 911 call was played for the jury.
At trial, R.E. testified that defendant was wearing glasses during the incident and that the injuries to defendant's face were from the hedge or bush. R.E. indicated that he never punched or hit defendant in the face. R.E. also stated that during his interaction with defendant, he never fell to the ground or hit his head on the stairs or a railing.
R.E. spoke with Officer Martinez when the officer arrived. In his brief recorded statement to police, which was played for the jury, R.E. described a different chronology. He indicated that defendant first charged him, he then threw defendant in the bushes, and then defendant hit him in the back of his head with a metal pipe. At trial, R.E. agreed that his recorded statement seemed to indicate that defendant had charged him twice, but R.E. recalled being charged only once. During that recorded interview, one of the officers stated that R.E. had a big knot on his head, but R.E. declined an ambulance. At trial, R.E. explained the discrepancies, stating that by the time of recording, his "head was really hurting" and he "got things mixed up."
Efren Martinez, an officer with the City of Watsonville, testified that on October 6, 2018, he received a dispatch and responded to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in less than three minutes. The officer saw a white, adult male exiting a driveway; the man was wearing a backpack and a black jacket and pushing a shopping cart. The male matched the description given by the 911 caller and provided by the dispatcher. The officer detained defendant and placed defendant in his patrol vehicle.
As Officer Martinez was parking in the church's parking lot, R.E., who was holding a metal pipe, approached the officer. R.E. handed the pipe to Officer Martinezand told the officer that he had been struck with it. The officer saw that R.E. had a head injury, which was consistent with being struck with the metal pipe.
At trial, it was Officer Martinez's recollection that he almost immediately turned on his audio recorder. R.E. had mentioned his head pain. Officer Martinez had photographed R.E.'s head injury, which he said was located toward the top of R.E.'s head. Based on the injury's location and his training and experience, Officer Martinez concluded that the head injury was inconsistent with a fall.
Defendant testified in his own behalf. Defendant indicated that R.E. was the aggressor and that he "was standing by the cart putting [his] things away when [R.E.] approached screaming and hollering and threatening [him.]" According to defendant, R.E. said, "Your kind ain't supposed to be here." Defendant claimed that R.E. "jumped up on" him and stomped on his feet and broke one of his toes. Defendant testified that R.E. began swinging with his fists and knocked out one of defendant's teeth. Defendant claimed that R.E. landed three or four blows and that he blocked several other blows. According to defendant, a scratch on his face was the result of R.E. hitting him with his fist. Defendant professed that he had felt threatened and a need to defend himself. According to defendant, R.E. grabbed his shirt, pulled it over his head, and repeatedly hit him with something. Defendant acknowledged that R.E. had thrown him into the bushes and that he had pushed R.E. into the wall. Defendant claimed that R.E. had stumbled and tripped on the steps and hit his head on a railing. Defendant admitted that the metal pipe belonged to him but claimed not to have used it against R.E.
On cross-examination, defendant claimed that he had "had [his] stuff out of the cart in a nice orderly fashion basically, and [he] was sitting down on the blankets. He conceded that he had told police that he had "bedded down" at the church but had been up before he—i.e., R.E.—was there. At trial, defendant claimed that "bedding down" did not mean sleeping or camping.
On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that six months before the incident for which he was now being prosecuted, in an earlier ...
To continue reading
Request your trial