(Super. Ct. No. SF114913A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The defendant beat up his live-in girlfriend. Convicted by jury of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and sentenced to 11 years in state prison, the defendant appeals. He contends the trial court erred by (1) admitting evidence of his prior domestic violence and (2) denying his motion to replace his appointed counsel. Neither contention has merit, so we affirm.
The defendant's contentions on appeal require only a brief recitation of the facts.
In April 2010, the defendant lived with his girlfriend, Julie. He found underwear in the bathroom, and Julie denied that it was hers. She said it belonged to her friend Amber. They argued, with the defendant accusing Julie of lying about the underwear.
Later the same day, Amber came to the apartment, and Julie told her to claim her underwear. Amber refused, and they fought physically. Believing the police were coming, Julie and the defendant left the apartment.
Several hours later, Julie and the defendant returned to the apartment and again argued. The defendant hit Julie in the face and head numerous times, breaking and bloodying her nose, splitting her lip, and knocking teeth loose.
Julie called 911. Stockton Police officers arrived and found Julie bleeding from her nose and mouth, with several teeth knocked loose or out. The defendant was not there. Julie told an officer that the defendant had caused her injuries. However, later, on the defendant's urging, Julie went to the police department and said that she sustained her injuries in the fight with Amber.
After the assault, Julie allowed the defendant to live with her until he was arrested about a month later.
The defense was that Julie's injuries were sustained in the fight with Amber.
The district attorney charged the defendant by information with assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))*fn1 with an enhancement for great bodily injury involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The information also charged the defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). The information alleged that the defendant had a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and three prior prison terms (667.5, subd. (b)).
A jury convicted the defendant of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury. However, the jury found the great bodily injury enhancement not true, and acquitted the defendant on the firearm and methamphetamine possession counts. The trial court ...