The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. 11NCR08547)
In this domestic violence case, defendant Noah Ryan Coats was charged by information with committing six offenses on three different dates: assault with a deadly weapon (count I; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))*fn1 and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count II; § 245, subd. (a)(1)) on or about October 21, 2010; battery with serious bodily injury (count III; § 243, subd. (d)) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count IV; § 245, subd. (a)(1)) on or about October 22, 2010; and false imprisonment (count V; § 236) and obstructing peace officers engaged in the performance of their duties (count VI; § 148, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor, on or about February 21, 2011. As to count IV, it was alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury, a broken jaw, under circumstances involving domestic violence. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) As to counts I through V, it was alleged that defendant had suffered four prior felony convictions and served four prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The victim on counts I through V was Crystal Rothgery.
On the first day of the jury trial, defendant admitted the prior felony convictions and the trial court found that defendant had served three prior prison terms.*fn2
The jury convicted defendant on counts III, IV, and VI, and found the enhancement on count IV true. The jury acquitted defendant on counts I and II and deadlocked on count V, as to which the trial court declared a mistrial. The prosecutor declined to retry defendant on count V.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate state prison term of 10 years, consisting of three years (the middle term) on count III; four years, to be served consecutively, for the great bodily injury enhancement on count IV; and three consecutive one-year terms for three prior prison commitments; with the sentences on counts IV and VI to run concurrently to count III.
On appeal, defendant contends only that the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion by denying him a midtrial continuance to locate Crystal Rothgery, whom he wished to call as his sole witness in the defense case. Rothgery had given testimony in the prosecution's case-in-chief.
We conclude defendant failed to make the showing required to obtain a continuance. We further conclude that defendant suffered no prejudice because Rothgery had already testified favorably to defendant as a prosecution witness; defendant made no offer of proof as to what further testimony Rothgery would give if recalled; and, based on the record before us, it is not reasonably probable that defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had there been further testimony by Rothgery. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Before trial, Rothgery executed a declaration in which she recanted her prior statements to the police and exculpating defendant. According to the declaration, defendant had never assaulted her, and her broken jaw had been inflicted by another woman with whom she had caught defendant. As to counts V and VI, Rothgery also declared that defendant ...