P. v. Bradley













Filed 6/18/13 P. v. Bradley CA2/2



















>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.





IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
TWO




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL EDWARD BRADLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

B244064 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA073569)

THE
COURT:href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*



Appellant
Michael Edward Bradley (Bradley) appeals from the judgment of conviction
following a jury trial.

Statement of the Case

An amended information filed August 15, 2012, charged Bradley with
assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.
Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">^[1] and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)) and
with allegations of priors. (§§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
A jury found Bradley guilty of criminal
threats. It found him not guilty of
assault with a deadly weapon, but found him guilty of the lesser included
offense of simple assault, in violation of section 240. Bradley waived his href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">constitutional rights to both a jury and
a court trial on his priors and admitted them as true.

On September 18, 2012, Bradley was sentenced to 11 years in
state prison after the trial court denied his Romerohref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"
title="">^[2] motion and his motion to reduce his criminal
threats conviction to a misdemeanor. (§
17, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court
selected the upper term of three years as to the criminal threats conviction,
doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes Law, and imposed an additional five years
pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
It struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b), priors. As to the misdemeanor assault, Bradley was
sentenced to time served. He received
credit of 123 days in custody and 123 days for work time, for a total of 246
days custody credit.

Timely notice of appeal was filed September 18, 2012.

Factual Background

Prosecution
Case

Ronald
Gordon (Gordon), Dave Patt (Patt), Gregory Hinde (Hinde), and Hinde’s daughter
Emily are neighbors on Abelia Road
in Canyon Country. Hinde and Gordon are
next door neighbors; Patt lives across the street from Hinde.

In the late
evening of May 6, 2012,
Hinde and Emily were taking photographs of the moon outside of Patt’s
house. Patt’s garage door was open and
he was inside cleaning while Gordon, Hinde, and Emily were outside. Gordon, Hinde, and Emily heard the sound of a
speeding car and saw a dark SUV drive towards them. Believing that the car was going above the
speed limit on a residential street, Gordon stepped out on the street and
motioned for the car to slow down.
However, instead of slowing down, the driver appeared to
accelerate. Frustrated with the frequent
problem of drivers speeding through their street, Gordon threw an empty plastic
cup at the car as it passed, hitting it on the passenger side.

When the
cup hit the car, the car came to an abrupt stop and the driver, Bradley,
stepped out. Bradley had a flashlight in
his hand as he moved towards Gordon, saying “I’m a Hell’s Angel” and “I’m going
to kill you.” Bradley grabbed Gordon’s
right arm and dragged Gordon across the street, twisted him onto the ground,
and hit him with the flashlight at least three times around his rib cage
area. Patt, who witnessed the events
from his garage, ran across the street to intervene, while Hinde announced that
he was going to get his cell phone. With
both hands in the air, Patt stepped between Bradley and Gordon, telling Bradley
to take it easy. Bradley appeared to
calm down a bit, stated “Fuck this,” and got back into his car and sped away.

Bradley had
already left when Hinde returned outside and phoned the sheriff’s department.

Los Angeles
County Sheriff Jeffrey Burrow arrived a few hours later and was given a
description of Bradley, his car, and the license plate number. Bradley was tracked down and arrested. A flashlight was found in his car. The car had a sticker on it saying, “Support
your local Hell’s Angels,” and another sticker depicting a female devil, which
is a common sticker used by the Hell’s Angels.
Bradley had 666 tattooed on his neck.

Although
Gordon did not seek medical
assistance, he was sore for a few months after the incident, and at the
time of trial, he was still in fear, specifically of retaliation.

Defense
Case

Bradley was
on his way home after visiting a friend when he turned onto Abelia
Road, driving no more than 30 to 35 miles per
hour. He saw Gordon waving his hands and
thought he was drunk. As Bradley got
closer, Gordon threw something that landed on his windshield. Upset, Bradley slammed on his brakes and
grabbed his flashlight to see if there was any damage. He noticed a chip on the windshield, but had
no time to investigate further because he was approached by two people who were
screaming at him. Gordon asked him about
his speed, and Bradley replied that Gordon had “assaulted” his windshield. Because Gordon kept moving towards Bradley in
a threatening manner, Bradley told him that he was with Hell’s Angels and that
he would “fuck him up,” in an effort to get him to back away. Gordon was unfazed by Bradley’s statement and
raised his hands as though he were about to hit Bradley, at which point Bradley
pushed him. Gordon went back about three
feet, but came right back. Wrestling
back and forth, Gordon would not back down and kept saying that he was going to
kick Bradley’s “ass.” While trying to
keep Gordon down, someone told Bradley to calm down. Bradley explained that Gordon had thrown
something on his windshield. Bradley was
again told to calm down, to take off, and that “we [would] take care of
this.” Bradley never hit Gordon with the
flashlight.

A few days
after the incident, Bradley received a call from the sheriff’s department
asking him to go to the station. Bradley
complied.

Discussion

Counsel was
appointed to represent Bradley in connection with this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel
filed an “Opening Brief” in which no arguable issues were raised. On March 6, 2013, we advised Bradley that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues for us
to consider. Bradley filed two
handwritten documents. In the letter
filed March 18, 2013, Bradley contends that the verdict was inconsistent with
the jury instructions (self-defense); his property and life were attacked and
threatened; prosecutorial misconduct and misconduct by the sheriff’s department
for failure to charge the victim (presumably, Gordon); inconsistent evidence;
perjury; and he was stereotyped. In the
letter filed April 2, 2013, Bradley asserts prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct
by (1) submitting the lesser included offense instruction, (2) commenting on
sentencing, and (3) allowing the jury to consider punishment as a factor in
determining his guilt or innocence.

After
reviewing the entire record, we conclude that it provides a factual basis to
support the conviction. Ample evidence
supports the jury’s conviction, namely testimony from Gordon, Hinde, Emily,
Patt, and Sheriff Burrow regarding the incident that occurred. As for the arguments set forth in Bradley’s
two letters, we have reviewed the appellate record and conclude that they do
not warrant reversal. While the jury was
instructed on self-defense, the jury was free not to believe Bradley’s
characterization of what occurred and to believe the several other witnesses who
testified regarding what occurred. Just
because the jury chose not to find self-defense
does not mean that the verdict is inconsistent with the instructions. Moreover, there is no evidence of
prosecutorial misconduct. We reviewed
the prosecutor’s closing argument and find no error. And, there is no evidence of perjury.

The fact that Bradley is not an
attorney does not compel reversal; an attorney reviewed the appellate record
and filed an appellate brief on his belief.
We are satisfied that Bradley’s attorney has fully complied with her
responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.