Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Cole CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A171069
v.
BILLY BRUCE COLE, (Contra Costa County Super.
Ct. No. 04002038438)
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted Billy Bruce Cole of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1
§ 187, subd. (a)) with a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and he
was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison. On appeal, Cole argues reversal is
required because the trial court excluded certain evidence at his preliminary
hearing and then denied Cole’s subsequent section 995 motion to dismiss.
We can identify no error in either proceeding, nor are any of Cole’s asserted
errors prejudicial. Therefore, we affirm.
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
BACKGROUND
I. Factual Background2
Cole and Rommel Hernandez, Jr., had been friends since childhood. In
mid-February 2022, after Cole’s mother had passed away, Hernandez offered
to help Cole clean up his mother’s effects. Hernandez brought his then-
girlfriend A.W. to Cole’s mother’s house to help, and Cole allowed them to
stay with him at the house for about “a week or so.”
Later that month, A.W. decided to leave Hernandez because she was
“[s]ick of the physical abuse.” On February 25, 2022, A.W. “grabbed a bag”
and left Cole’s mother’s house. Hernandez got in his car to “chase [A.W.]
down” and tried to “hit [her] with the car” as she was walking on the
sidewalk. A.W. jumped out of the way, but, from the driver’s seat, Hernandez
was able to grab A.W. and pull her back into the car. Hernandez stopped the
car and began assaulting A.W.
Matthew DeBonneville, a lineman for AT&T, was working on a utility
pole overlooking the incident and began yelling at Hernandez to stop.
Hernandez did not and dragged A.W. by her hair into Cole’s house;
DeBonneville called 911. The police arrived and took Hernandez into
custody. Cole, who had not been home during the incident, returned as police
were arresting Hernandez. Hernandez asked Cole to let A.W. stay at Cole’s
house until he was released, and Cole agreed.
2 Because Cole’s opening “Statement of Facts” provides only a partial
procedural background rather than the required “summary of the significant
facts” and because Cole does not challenge any of the trial proceedings, we
take the background facts from the testimony presented at trial. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rules 8.204(a)(2)(C), 8.360(a).)
2
The next day, A.W. left Cole’s house in Hernandez’s car. Cole texted
A.W. asking her to return because he was lonely and romantically interested
in her. The messages between Cole and A.W. became sexual in nature.
A.W. sold Hernandez’s car for $200 and returned to Cole’s house, where
they split the money from the sale. A.W. and Cole then started a sexual
relationship.
In the early morning hours of March 2, 2022, Cole and A.W. were
captured on home surveillance video3 discussing “possible self-defense if
[Hernandez] forced his way into [Cole’s] house and attacked [A.W.]” after
being released from custody. Around 1:30 a.m., Cole and A.W. heard
pounding on the sliding glass door to the backyard. Thinking someone was
trying to break in, Cole retrieved a firearm and told A.W. to hide in the
bathroom attached to the master bedroom. Cole yelled, “Who is it. Who is
out there?” Hernandez identified himself, and Cole told him to go around to
the front door.
At the front door, Hernandez asked about A.W., and Cole told him that
A.W. had left a few days ago, but Hernandez pushed past Cole and started
searching the house.
Hernandez found A.W. hiding in the bathroom shower and grabbed her
by the throat. Still carrying the gun, Cole said, “ ‘What are you doing? Get
off of her.’ ” Hernandez responded, “ ‘You want to fight? I’ll fucking kill
you.’ ” Cole and Hernandez began to struggle over Cole’s gun, when it
accidentally discharged and shot Cole through the left hand.
3 Cole’s house was equipped with at least three motion-activated
surveillance cameras: one located by the front door, one located in the master
bedroom, and the third in a spare bedroom off the main hallway. At Cole’s
subsequent trial, the videos were played for the jury and admitted into
evidence.
3
After the struggle, Cole left the bedroom, taking the gun with him, and
went to the kitchen to check his injury. Meanwhile, Hernandez pulled A.W.
out of the bathroom onto the bed and began asking her why she cheated on
him with Cole.
Cole testified that he returned to the bedroom around 1:45 a.m.,
pointed the gun at Hernandez, and told him to get out of the house. Cole
stated that Hernandez raised his hands in the air and started walking
toward Cole as Cole backed out of the bedroom and into the main hallway.
Once Hernandez reached the bedroom door, he dropped his hands and
slammed the door shut, leaving Cole in the hallway. The bedroom door had a
hollow core and no lock, so Hernandez held it shut with his left arm with
A.W. still inside the bedroom behind him. Cole testified he raised the gun to
chest height and fired one shot through the door “[t]o get him to stop and
leave.”
The bullet entered Hernandez’s extended left arm and traveled along
the arm and into the chest, where it perforated both lungs and came to rest in
the right chest cavity. After being hit, Hernandez said, “All right. I’m done.
I’ll leave. I’ll stop. I’ll leave.” Hernandez opened the bedroom door, “took one
or two steps” into the hallway, and collapsed into the door to the spare
bedroom, causing that door to open and activate the camera in that room.
Cole yelled, “ ‘Fuck with me. Now you’re dead.’ ”4
After Hernandez collapsed, neither Cole nor A.W. called 911 or sought
help. Instead, they proceeded to smoke methamphetamine and marijuana.
Security footage showed Cole and A.W. talking in the bedroom, discussing
possible alibis and how to dispose of Hernandez’s body; around 3:30 a.m.,
4 A forensic pathologist estimated at trial that it would have taken
Hernandez 10 to 15 minutes to die from internal bleeding after being shot.
4
Cole forcefully kicked Hernandez’s dead body and threatened to shoot
Hernandez if he moved. Cole told A.W. to hide Hernandez’s cell phone in the
freezer, which she did. About an hour after the shooting, Cole noticed the
home surveillance camera in the bedroom and threw it in the backyard; Cole
did not delete any of the recordings.
Around 9:00 a.m. the same day, police arrived at Cole’s house to serve
an unrelated search warrant and discovered Hernandez’s body in the
hallway. Hernandez did not appear to be breathing and showed signs of
“lividity” or pooling of the blood within the lowest points of the body due to a
lack of circulation. Police questioned Cole and A.W., who gave accounts of
the shooting that were later disproven when police obtained the home
surveillance videos.5
Cole was taken to the hospital for his hand injury and arrested on
suspicion of murder.
II. Procedural History
In March 2022, the Contra Costa County District Attorney charged
Cole with first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and alleged he personally
discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).6
At the May 2022 preliminary hearing, the parties stipulated to the
admission of the police report from the February 2022 domestic violence
5 For example, A.W. told police that she did not have a cell phone to call
for help after Hernandez was shot; however, video footage showed A.W.
placing Hernandez’s phone in the freezer, where police subsequently found it.
At trial, Cole and A.W. both admitted to being “dishonest” with police officers.
Cole asserted he “wasn’t thinking clearly” because he “was on drugs,” while
A.W. claimed she had been trying to protect Cole.
6 A.W. was charged in the same complaint with a felony violation of
section 32, accessory after the fact. Because Cole is the sole appellant here,
we do not recount the proceedings related to A.W.
5
incident between Hernandez and A.W. witnessed by DeBonneville. The
People introduced and played the March 2022 home surveillance video, which
recorded Cole and A.W.’s discussion before Hernandez arrived, Hernandez’s
arrival at Cole’s house, the shooting, and Cole and A.W.’s subsequent
discussions and interactions before the police arrived and served the search
warrant.
After the People completed their presentation of evidence, Cole sought
to introduce testimony from two witnesses: DeBonneville, the AT&T lineman
who witnessed part of Hernandez’s February 2022 assault of A.W., and a
defense investigator who was prepared to introduce “two different
photographs which depict Hernandez exhibiting a firearm.” According to
defense counsel, this evidence was offered in support of Cole’s affirmative
defense that he shot Hernandez in defense of A.W.
The court denied both requests. The court explained DeBonneville’s
testimony was unnecessary because Cole had not witnessed the assault;
rather, A.W. had “told Cole what happened to her and described [the
incident] to him. So it doesn’t matter what [DeBonneville] says, it just
matters what [A.W.] told [Cole] that happened.” Regarding the pictures of
Hernandez with firearms, there was “no evidence before this court that Cole
. . . knew of these photographs, [or] that [Cole] ever saw Hernandez—ever
saw the victim with a gun. . . . [¶] . . . . So there’s no relevance.”
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the court held Cole to
answer as charged. The district attorney subsequently filed an information
again alleging murder with an enhancement for the personal use of a firearm
(§§ 187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subd. (d)).
In October 2023, Cole filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 995,
challenging the adequacy of the prosecution’s showing at the preliminary
6
hearing and the exclusion of Cole’s proffered witnesses. As relevant to this
appeal, Cole specifically argued that the murder charge must be set aside
because the shooting was an act in defense of A.W. and thus “the prosecution
failed to establish probable cause to believe Cole killed [Hernandez] without
lawful justification.” According to Cole, the trial court’s exclusion of
DeBonneville’s testimony denied him the substantial right to call witnesses
in support of his defense; the photographs were improperly excluded because
showing Hernandez with a firearm “would have gone towards establishing
[Hernandez’s] character for violence.”
The People filed an opposition, and in November 2023, the court denied
the motion after hearing, finding, “The relevance of [the excluded] testimony
was tenuous.”7 Specifically, the court considered DeBonneville’s testimony to
be “cumulative” since “[i]t had been summarized by other witnesses, and the
police report.” Likewise, the pictures of Hernandez with a gun were
“cumulative and not terribly probative” because there was no “question that
Hernandez had engaged in domestic violence” shortly before the incident.
Thus, the court rejected Cole’s argument that “a substantial right” had been
“breached at the preliminary hearing.”8
7 The section 995 motion was heard and decided by a different judge
from the judge who presided over the preliminary hearing and trial.
8 The court also disagreed with Cole’s characterization of Hernandez’s
behavior on the night of the shooting, explaining that “the video actually
made Hernandez seem quite pitiful, not aggressive. He is looking for his
girlfriend,” who was “sleeping with his best friend since he was a 13 year
old.” To the extent Hernandez touched A.W., it “looked like he was trying to
hold her and talk her into coming back to him,” and it “did not appear to [the
court] that [Hernandez] was being aggressive at that point.”
7
The case proceeded to a jury trial in December 2023.9 The home
surveillance videos showing the shooting and surrounding events were played
for the jury. In addition to the responding officers who had testified at the
preliminary hearing, DeBonneville, Cole, and A.W. testified at trial. Cole
testified he shot Hernandez because he believed that Hernandez would kill
him and A.W. Cole did not testify that he had any awareness before the
shooting that Hernandez owned or carried firearms, nor did defense counsel
attempt to introduce the photographs of Hernandez holding a gun that had
been excluded from the preliminary hearing.
In February 2024, the jury found Cole not guilty of first degree murder
but guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and found
true the firearm enhancement. In June 2024, the trial court sentenced Cole
to 40 years to life in state prison.
In July 2024, Cole filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Cole argues the “court’s exclusion of key defense evidence
during the preliminary hearing, including the testimony of [DeBonneville]
and the defense investigator,” “violated his constitutional right to due process
and his fundamental right to present a defense.” As we will discuss, we are
not convinced the magistrate erred in excluding Cole’s witnesses at the
preliminary hearing, nor do we believe the court erred in denying the section
995 motion. However, even assuming error, there was no constitutional
violation, and Cole fails to establish any resulting prejudice.
9 Because Cole does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction, we do not detail the evidence presented at trial
beyond the description provided in the factual background.
8
To start, we reject Cole’s attempt to cast his argument as a
constitutional one. At a preliminary hearing, “The magistrate shall not
permit the testimony of any defense witness unless the offer of proof discloses
to the satisfaction of the magistrate, in his or her sound discretion, that the
testimony of that witness, if believed, would be reasonably likely to establish
an affirmative defense, negate an element of the crime charged, or impeach
the testimony of a prosecution witness . . . .” (§ 866, subd. (a), italics added.)
And “evidence at the preliminary hearing is inadmissible where it ‘tends only
remotely or to an insignificant degree to prove a material fact in the case’
[citations]; or where the proffered evidence could not have added any more
detail to the evidence already produced; or where the excluded evidence
would have been relevant only to the weight of the direct evidence [citation].”
(People v. Buckley (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 512, 523–524 [finding “the
evidentiary ruling of the magistrate [excluding three defense witnesses from
testifying at the preliminary hearing] was either proper or, at the very least,
was not prejudicial”].) Thus, the court’s exclusion of evidence from the
preliminary hearing here is both statutorily authorized and falls within the
court’s “wide discretion to preclude cumulative and time-consuming
duplication of inquiry.” (Id. at p. 524.)
Moreover, even in the more expansive context of jury trial, “ ‘Although
completely excluding evidence of an accused’s defense theoretically could rise
to [a constitutional] level,’ ” merely excluding some evidence without
precluding the defendant from otherwise presenting a defense does not
amount to a constitutional violation. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381,
427–428 [defendant’s “attempt to inflate garden-variety evidentiary questions
into constitutional ones is unpersuasive”]; People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th
899, 957 [“because the trial court merely excluded some evidence . . . and did
9
not preclude defendant from presenting a defense, any error would be one of
state evidentiary law only”].)
Thus, while entirely precluding Cole from presenting an affirmative
defense at the preliminary hearing could theoretically constitute a
deprivation of due process (see Avitia v. Superior Court (2018) 6 Cal.5th 486,
494), Cole was not denied that right in these proceedings because he was
afforded the right to—and did—present evidence of his affirmative claim of
self-defense. At the preliminary hearing, Cole’s counsel expressly argued to
the court that DeBonneville and the photographs of Hernandez were
“relevant to [Cole’s affirmative defense and] the level of violence used,” and
the court responded by discussing the jury instructions for self-defense.
Further, as Cole’s counsel “recognize[d]” at the preliminary hearing, the
parties stipulated to introduction of the police report detailing Hernandez’s
February 2022 assault of A.W., which the court accepted as a proffered
factual basis for Cole’s affirmative defense. To clarify the purpose of the
additional evidence offered, the court asked Cole’s counsel: “[H]ow does
[DeBonneville’s proposed testimony or the photographs of Hernandez] negate
an element of the offense or go to an affirmative defense?” The court then
rejected counsel’s argument that the evidence was relevant “ ‘in deciding
whether [Cole’s] conduct and belief were reasonable’ ” and ruled the
additional evidence had “no relevance” to Cole’s claim of self-defense.10
10 “ ‘A homicide is considered justified as self-defense where the
defendant actually and reasonably believed the use of deadly force was
necessary to defend himself [or another person] from imminent threat of
death or great bodily injury. Under such circumstances, the killing is not a
crime.’ ” (People v. Brim (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 168, 183, quoting People v.
Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 744; see also § 197.)
10
Because Cole did present his defense at the preliminary hearing, the
court’s refusal to admit “cumulative” testimony concerning that same
incident of domestic violence or collateral evidence of Hernandez’s gun
possession outside the scope of Cole’s knowledge were evidentiary rulings
that do not amount to a denial of due process.
I. Preliminary Hearing and Section 995 Motion
Cole next argues that the “evidentiary rulings” at the preliminary
hearing “led to a probable cause determination based on an incomplete and
misleading record.” We disagree because the “evidentiary rulings” were not
erroneous and Cole’s section 995 motion was properly denied.
“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a section 995 motion, we
disregard the ruling of the trial court and directly review the magistrate’s
ruling.” (People v. Superior Court (Mendez) (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 268, 277.)
“We independently review the magistrate’s legal conclusions” and, drawing
all reasonable inferences in favor of the information, we “ ‘decide whether
there is probable cause to hold the defendant[] to answer.’ ” (Mendez, at
p. 277.) A reviewing court “ ‘ “will not set aside an information ‘if there is
some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been
committed and the accused is guilty of it.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.)
“The purpose of the preliminary hearing is merely ‘to establish whether
there exists probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a
felony.’ ” (Galindo v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1, 6, quoting § 866,
subd. (b).) Probable cause does not require evidence sufficient to support a
criminal conviction. (People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582.) Rather,
the evidence must simply lead a reasonable person to entertain a strong
suspicion of guilt. (Galindo, at p. 8; see also Rideout v. Superior Court (1967)
67 Cal.2d 471, 474.) “It is well settled that ‘the showing required at a
11
preliminary hearing is exceedingly low.’ ” (People v. Abelino (2021)
62 Cal.App.5th 563, 573.)
Here, we see no error in the exclusion of the testimony of DeBonneville
and the defense investigator at the preliminary hearing, which, as stated,
falls within the court’s “wide discretion.” (People v. Buckley, supra,
185 Cal.App.3d at p. 524.) Regarding DeBonneville, Cole does not challenge
the preliminary hearing court’s statement: “It’s clear to this court that [A.W.]
told [Cole] about the incident that occurred [in February 2022] and everyone
was aware that [Hernandez] was arrested for domestic violence.” But Cole
“didn’t see what happened. So the only information he’s relying on is what
[A.W.] told him, and that’s it.” As such, DeBonneville’s firsthand account of
the domestic violence incident was not relevant to what Cole knew when he
shot Hernandez. Moreover, the parties’ stipulated introduction of police
report detailing the domestic violence incident that DeBonneville witnessed
rendered his testimony cumulative.
Following the same logic, the court did not err in precluding Cole’s
investigator from testifying. Even if admitted into evidence, the photographs
of Hernandez with a firearm were not relevant to Cole’s affirmative defense
because, as the preliminary hearing court stated, “There’s no evidence before
this court that Cole or [A.W.] knew of these photographs, that they ever saw
Hernandez . . . with the gun.”
Accordingly, the testimony and evidence introduced at the preliminary
hearing supports the hearing court’s denial of Cole’s section 995 motion. Cole
suggests the court erred in refusing to dismiss the murder charge because
“[t]he prosecution’s case rested on speculation,” and there was no “evidence of
malice” at the preliminary hearing. We disagree. At the preliminary
hearing, the prosecution introduced video footage of Cole using
12
methamphetamine and discussing killing Hernandez before the shooting, the
shooting itself, Cole kicking the likely deceased Hernandez in the hours after
the shooting, and Cole attempting to hide the cameras and dispose of
evidence. This video footage cannot be characterized as “speculation” and
provides “evidence of malice,” contrary to Cole’s suggestion otherwise. (Cf.
People v. Caffero (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 678, 685–686 [affirming dismissal of
murder charge where there was “no evidence” at the preliminary hearing to
“support the inference defendants acted with conscious or wanton disregard
for human life and thus with malice aforethought”].)
In sum, Cole fails to demonstrate error either in excluding evidence at
the preliminary hearing or in denying Cole’s subsequent section 995 motion.
And even if the evidence had been admitted, it would merely create a factual
dispute that would not be properly resolved on a section 995 motion. (People
v. Reid (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 446, 461 [“it is not the role of this court in an
appeal from the granting of a section 995 motion—nor is it the role of a trial
court—to attempt to resolve any inconsistencies in the preliminary hearing
evidence”].) However, as we discuss next, assuming error arguendo, Cole
fails to demonstrate the prejudice required for reversal.
II. Absence of Prejudice
A defendant may seek review of the denial of a section 995 motion
either by pretrial writ or postjudgment appeal; however, if the denial is
challenged after trial, then “the defendant must establish the error was
prejudicial.” (People v. Mena (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 156, citing People v.
Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529; see also People v. Hampton (1981)
116 Cal.App.3d 193, 199 [defendant’s “claim of insufficient evidence before
the magistrate is not such specie of error that affects the jurisdiction of the
superior court in the fundamental sense” and thus “[r]eversal is not required”
13
absent prejudice].) To demonstrate such prejudice, the defendant must show
“that the asserted errors ‘deprived [the defendant] of a fair trial or otherwise
resulted in any actual prejudice relating to [the] conviction.’ ” (People v.
Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 178.) “Even ‘ “ ‘[i]f there is insufficient
evidence to support the commitment, the defendant cannot be said to be
prejudiced where sufficient evidence has been introduced at . . . trial’ ” ’ to
support the jury’s finding as to the charge or as to the truth of the allegation.”
(People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 137; People v. Letner and Tobin
(2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 140.)
Here, Cole asserts three grounds for finding prejudice, all of which fail.
First, he claims the exclusion of his witnesses “deprived [him] of a
meaningful opportunity to preview and preserve favorable testimony at the
preliminary stage.” “Second,” Cole argues, “had the case been dismissed for
lack of probable cause, the prosecution would have been forced to reevaluate
its position before refiling.” Third, and relatedly, Cole claims that “Even if
the prosecution had refiled, the defense would have gained critical leverage in
a second proceeding.” On reply, Cole adds the fact that DeBonneville
testified at trial “misses the point” because Cole “was unlawfully held to
answer in the first instance.”
In response to Cole’s first argument, the preliminary hearing “is not a
vehicle for discovery.” (Curry v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 580,
588; see also § 866, subd. (b) [“examination shall not be used for purposes of
discovery”]; People v. Buckley, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 523 [at a
preliminary hearing, “the defendant may not seek cross-examination or
presentation of a witness for the sole and primary goal of obtaining
discovery”].)
14
In addition, Cole’s second and third arguments do not establish that he
was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise prejudiced. DeBonneville’s exclusion
from the preliminary hearing was not prejudicial because DeBonneville
testified at trial about the February 2022 domestic violence incident between
Hernandez and A.W., as did A.W. As such, “[a]ny impropriety in the
preliminary examination was subsequently cured” when the absent witness
was made available at trial. (See, e.g., People v. Aston (1985) 39 Cal.3d 481,
495.)
Similarly, the trial court ruled that the photographs of Hernandez with
a firearm could be admitted at trial for Cole’s state of mind if the defense laid
a foundation that Cole knew of the pictures before the incident, but Cole and
his attorney never laid that foundation. Although Cole testified at trial, he
did not testify that he was aware of Hernandez’s firearms, nor did his
attorney seek to introduce the photographs into evidence. Accordingly, there
was no prejudice from the exclusion of the photographs at the preliminary
hearing. (See People v. Aston, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 495 [no prejudice where
excluded witness was available to defendant and “also available to testify at
trial” even though the witness was “not called by either side” to testify].)
Moreover, even if any of the evidentiary exclusions had been erroneous,
being “unlawfully” held to answer does not result in automatic reversal on
direct appeal, as Cole contends on reply. (See, e.g., People v. Anderson (2015)
234 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1419, 1421 [despite error in being represented by “not
competent” counsel at preliminary hearing, defendant was not entitled to
relief “[i]n the absence of any showing of prejudice” at trial].) As explained
above, Cole does not raise the type of error that would require reversal absent
prejudice, and the murder conviction even after the admission at trial of the
evidence at issue shows there was none. (See People v. Gaio (2000)
15
81 Cal.App.4th 919, 936 [no showing of prejudice “because the evidence at
trial was sufficient to support [defendant’s] convictions”].)
In conclusion, even assuming arguendo error in the preliminary
hearing proceedings, Cole does not demonstrate any prejudice resulting
therefrom; thus, Cole fails to show any basis for reversal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
16
DESAUTELS, J.
We concur:
STEWART, P. J.
RICHMAN, J.
People v. Cole (A171069)
17