P. v. Catchings

Filed 6/6/08 P. v. Catchings CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Lynn C. Atkinson, Judge.

John Ward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

A jury found state prison inmate Dennis Catchings guilty of battery by gassing a correctional officer, attempted battery by gassing a correctional officer, and battery by a prisoner on a non-prisoner and found four strike prior allegations true. (Pen. Code,  664, 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e), 4501.1, subd. (a), 4501.5.)^[1] The court imposed three 25-to-life terms consecutively to each other and to the felony sentence he was already serving. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of one of his crimes. We will affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Catchings argues an insufficiency of the evidence of the attempted battery by gassing a correctional officer (a dental assistant in the prison dental office). The Attorney General argues the contrary.

Two correctional officers escorting Catchings past the prison dental office heard him yell about not getting proper services and saw him spit towards the dental staff on his way out. Both officers saw spit come out of his mouth. One officer testified the dentist was behind the dental assistant and farther away from Catchings than the dental assistant was. The other officer testified he recalled seeing the dental assistant but not the dentist in the office at the time. The dental assistant testified she did not remember the dentist being there at the time. Initially, she testified Catchings leaned forward, looked right at me, and spit towards me. Later, she testified she heard him make a sound as if to spit and saw him lunge forward but did not actually see him spit.

Our duty on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment for substantial evidence evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that could have enabled any rational trier of fact to have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318; People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1251.) In doing so, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact a reasonable trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1251.) The same standard of review applies to circumstantial evidence and direct evidence alike. (Ibid.)

By the applicable standard of review, a sufficiency of the evidence of the attempted battery by gassing a correctional officer is in the record. The argument Catchings raises is essentially a request that we reweigh the facts. That we cannot do. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331-333.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.

^[1]Later statutory references are to the Penal Code.