Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Hayes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086414
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD304949)
v.
MICHAEL DAVID HAYES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Albert T. Harutunian, III, Judge. Affirmed.
Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Michael David Hayes of one count of elder abuse (Pen.
Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)) and found Hayes inflicted great bodily injury
(§ 12022.7, subd. (c)). He was also convicted of false imprisonment by force or
threat of force or menace (§§ 236/237, subd. (a)).
The court sentenced appellant to a total term of two years in prison and
stayed a five-year term for the bodily injury enhancement.
Hayes filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief following the guidance of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende.
Counsel has included a summary of the facts of the offense. We will
include that summary as a statement of facts in order to provide some
background information.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
“Freddye Taylor was in a relationship for 14 years with David Hayes,
and was living, in his home, at the time of the underlying incident. (RT 118.)
Appellant is David Hayes’ son who was also living in the house. (RT 119.) On
September 19, 2025, David Hayes and appellant were arguing about
appellant drinking a bottle of wine. (RT 124.) Appellant stood up from the
sofa and pushed his father, who fell. Appellant grabbed Freddye Taylor and
pushed her down. (RT 125-126.) She landed on her right shoulder injuring it.
(RT 131–132.) Appellant walked past her and put his foot close to her face
and called her a derogatory name. (RT 134.) David Hayes told her to call the
police, which she did by dialing 911. (RT 134.) She told the operator that
there was an “addict” in the house who beat up her and his father and that
appellant kicked her, and she thought her shoulder was broken. He also
threw his father across the sofa and broke his glasses. (CT 144; RT 135-136;
People’s Exhibit 2/2A (911 call and transcript).) She went to the emergency
room the same day, but it was too busy, so she left and went back the next
morning. She had surgery on her shoulder on October 2, 2025, as a result of
2
the injury she suffered when appellant pushed her down. (CT 145; RT 138-
140; RT 189-190; People’s Exhibit 5 (Freddye Taylor medical records).)
According to David Hayes, he was arguing with appellant about a
bottle of wine when Freddye Taylor joined the argument. He never saw
appellant touch Freddye Taylor. (RT 161-162.) He did not recall telling the
police that he saw appellant touch Freddye Taylor, and, in fact, he never saw
appellant touch her. (RT 163-165.) Appellant “touched” him and he fell over
the couch. (RT 166.)
“Detective Antonio David responded to a call and detained appellant
while he interviewed Freddye Taylor and David Hayes, and his body-worn
camera was on when he interviewed David Hayes. (RT 182-185.) David
Hayes told him that he and appellant were arguing when appellant grabbed
Freddye Taylor’s arm. Appellant pushed him out of the way and he fell over
the couch. He thought appellant pushed Freddye Taylor down. (CT 7 144-145;
RT 186; People’s Exhibit 6/6A (Body Worn Camera footage and transcript of
interview with David Hayes).)”
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified seven possible issues that were
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
Whether the court erred in admitting appellant’s prior conviction for
impeachment.
Did the court err in admitting evidence of drug use to explain family
tensions?
Did the court err in admitting medical records to prove injury?
3
Did the court err by excluding the victim’s criminal history for drug
use?
Did the court err by excluding the testimony of a defense witness?
Did the court err at sentencing by staying the sentence for great bodily
injury instead of striking it?
Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for false
imprisonment?
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented appellant in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
4
