Filed 12/13/18 P. v. Williams CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID LEN WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D073937
(Super. Ct. No. SCE374377) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed.
Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found David Len Williams guilty of battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d))[1] and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and found true attached allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on another person who was not an accomplice (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Williams to prison for three years on the assault conviction (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), plus a consecutive term of three years for the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and imposed and stayed execution of a three-year term on the battery conviction (§§ 243, subd. (d), 654, subd. (a)). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) raising no claims of error and inviting this court to review the record independently for error. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
After drinking and smoking marijuana with Eugene W. and Shawn H., Williams became angry with Eugene, screamed at him, and then twice punched him in the face. When Eugene went to a hospital several hours later, he had a fractured cheekbone and a facial hematoma, which was surgically drained.
On the charge of battery with serious bodily injury the trial court instructed the jury: "A serious bodily injury means a serious impairment of physical condition. Such an injury may include, but is not limited to: loss of consciousness, bone fracture, a protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ, or a wound requiring extensive suturing." (CALCRIM No. 925.) During deliberations, the jury sent the following question to the court: "How many (or is it just one?) of the symptoms need to be considered for 'serious bodily injury' in the greater battery charge to apply?" The court responded by referring the jury to the portion of CALCRIM No. 925 quoted above.
DISCUSSION
Williams's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings of the case. Counsel presented no argument for reversal or modification of the judgment and instead asked us to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified three issues to assist this court in its review: (1) "Whether CALCRIM No. 925 effectively results in a directed verdict by telling the jury that specific injuries constitute 'serious bodily injury' as a matter of law"; (2) "Whether the trial court erred in its response to the jury's question during deliberations"; and (3) "Whether there was sufficient evidence of causation, specifically with regards to the injuries suffered by [Eugene]."
We granted Williams permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not done so.
Having reviewed the entire record for error pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, we find no arguable grounds for reversal or modification of the judgment on appeal. Williams has been competently represented by counsel on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GUERRERO, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
[1] Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
