Filed 6/23/26 P. v. Audain CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G064673
v. (Super. Ct. No. 21WF1878)
KENNEDY ANTHONY AUDAIN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Andrew Mestman and James
M. Toohey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Kennedy Anthony Audain appeals from his conviction
for first degree murder. He contends insufficient evidence showed he killed
willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. He also contends two fines
that were imposed but stayed should be stricken from the trial court’s
judgment.
We hold the evidence sufficiently supported the conviction and
that Audain fails to show the fines should have been stricken. We affirm the
judgment.
FACTS
Audain stabbed Leticia Mahe to death in a motel room. Twenty
minutes before the killing, Audain wielded a knife and told Mahe: “You are
my wife.” She responded: “No, I am not your wife. Okay? I am your friend.”
To her repeated requests to give her the knife, Audain responded: “This is my
knife,” and “No I’m not! I’m not! Don’t fucking touch my door!” When Mahe
said, “You’re gonna go to jail,” Audain responded, “I don’t care if I go to jail!”
Mahe called 911 and Audain told Mahe: “You’s a bitch, you die a
bitch.” Mahe asked: “Who you talking about?” Audain responded: “I’m talking
to fucking you.” Audain referred to a “fucking boyfriend,” and Mahe
responded, “I don’t have any boyfriends.”
Audain said, “I love you,” before telling Mahe “we die together.”
He repeated, “we die together,” and specified, “I’m gonna stab you.” He
repeated, “I’ll kill you. I’ll kill you. I’ll kill you,” as Mahe screamed.
When police arrived at the motel room, in response to the 911
dispatch, Audain said “Break the door open. Kill me . . . I wanna die.” He had
blood on both of his hands and attempted to start a fire with clothes he placed
onto the bed. In the room was a 12-inch kitchen knife with blood on it and
Mahe’s body with 76 sharp force injuries—five of them to the right side of her
neck. Laboratory analysis later showed methamphetamine in both Audain’s
and Mahe’s blood systems.
2
Audain was charged with committing murder by personally using
a knife. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a) & 12022, subd. (b)(1).)1 Transcribed
recordings of the events leading up to the killing were presented at trial—one
was a video recording on Mahe’s cell phone and another was an audio
recording of a 911 “open line” call by Mahe, “meaning there wasn’t much
communication with the dispatcher.” Along with law enforcement officers
who testified about their 911 response, three motel guests testified about
hearing “a commotion,” “struggling,” and “multiple screams” from inside the
room around the time of the killing.
The parties stipulated to the laboratory findings of
methamphetamine. The jury heard experts testify about Audain being
diagnosed with an “intellectual disability,” “persistent depressive disorder,”
and “major depressive disorder.” A forensic psychologist presented by Audain
conceded on cross-examination that Audain “could engage in rational
behavior.”
The jury was instructed on first degree murder (CALCRIM No.
521), the effects of voluntary intoxication on homicide liability (CALCRIM
No. 625), and how to consider “evidence that the defendant may have suffered
from a mental disease, defect, or disorder” (CALCRIM No. 3428). It convicted
Audain of first degree murder and found he personally used a knife to commit
the offense.
The trial court sentenced Audain to 26 years to life in prison and
then addressed statutory fines. In its oral pronouncement of judgment, the
trial court “stayed” its imposition of a minimum $300 state restitution fine
and a parole revocation fine (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1) & 1202.45, sub. (a)),
1 All statutory references are to this code.
3
“pursuant to” People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas) and a
finding Audain did “not have the ability to pay” the fines. Both the court’s
minutes and its abstract of judgment reflect the fines are “Permanently
stayed.”
DISCUSSION
“All murder that is perpetrated by . . . any . . . kind of willful,
deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the first degree.” (§ 189,
subd. (a).) “In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire
record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it
discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a
reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no
hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the
conviction.” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331 [cleaned up] (Bolin).)
We agree with the Attorney General that we may look to “three
categories of evidence relevant to resolving the issue of premeditation and
deliberation: planning activity, motive, and manner of killing.” (Bolin, supra,
18 Cal.4th at p. 331, citing People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15.)
First, substantial evidence showed planning activity. The video
showed Audain wield a knife 20 minutes before he killed. (See People v.
Morales (2020) 10 Cal.5th 76, 90 (Morales) [arming shows planning].) Then
he is heard communicating his plan in the 911 call: “I’m gonna stab you,” and
“we die together.” Then after the killing, Audain told the police: “Kill me. I
wanna die.”
Second, substantial evidence showed motive—as the prosecutor
argued during closing, Audain “was a jealous boyfriend.” (See People v.
Houston (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 279, 307 [“extramarital affairs” relevant to
4
show motive]). Audain called Mahe “my wife,” claimed she had a “fucking
boyfriend,” and referred to “fucking around evil” before claiming: “I love you.”
Third, the manner of killing shows the stabbing was “designed to
kill.” (Morales, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 91.) Mahe’s carotid artery was
completely severed and at least one of her neck wounds was seven inches in
depth. These wounds were inflicted along with over 70 other wounds to other
parts of Mahe’s body. “From the evidence, the jury could have concluded” the
killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. (Ibid.)
We reject Audain’s contention that the “evidence justified no
more than an inference that Audain killed Mahe in a rash explosion of
anger.” Audain’s reliance on People v. Boatman (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th
1253—which involved “no evidence of any plan to kill,” “little or no
meaningful evidence of a motive,” and a single gunshot that the appellate
court found inconsistent with an execution (id., at p. 1269)—is thus
unavailing. As the Attorney General correctly notes here, the jury was
instructed on disability and intoxication, heard opposing arguments on the
issues, and “nevertheless found that the prosecution proved premeditation
and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt.” It was not unreasonable for the
jury to reject arguments that his killing was “the product of his mental
illness, intoxication, and unconsidered impulse.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007)
42 Cal.4th 379, 420.)
Finally, Audain contends the minimum “$300 restitution fine and
corresponding parole revocation fine should be stricken” because “the trial
court made a finding under [Dueñas] that [he] had an inability to pay these
fines.” (Cleaned up.) Dueñas stands for a proposition that a “stay” of a
minimum “restitution fine” is the appropriate remedy for an indigent
defendant. (Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1172; see id. at p. 1171, fn. 8
5
[“excessive fines” analysis of § 1202.4, subd. (c)].) Audain’s contention based
on Dueñas therefore fails to show the court should have done something else.2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SCOTT, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.
SANCHEZ, J.
2 Given that the Attorney General does not challenge the stayed
fines, we express no opinion on them and do not reach the California
Supreme Court’s recent disapproval of Dueñas on other grounds. (People v.
Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 18, 23, fn. 17.)
6
