Filed 2/9/22 P. v. Reyes CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 PEOPLE, F081067 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-19-008764) v. OSCAR REYES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Robert B. Westbrook, Judge. Daniel G. Koryn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Cameron M. Goodman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION A jury convicted appellant Oscar Reyes of battery on a spouse or cohabitor (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count II) and intimidating a witness and/or victim (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subds. (a), (b); count III).1 In April 2020, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and it placed him on formal probation for three years under various terms and conditions. Appellant seeks reversal of his judgment, raising claims involving alleged evidentiary and instructional errors. We reject his arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant and the victim in this matter have two minor children in common. They were residing together as a family when the domestic violence charged in this matter occurred. I. Appellant Is Arrested Following An Incident Of Domestic Violence. On September 14, 2019, the victim in this matter called 911. That call was recorded and it was played for the jury. In the call, the victim reported that appellant had hit her. That same night two police officers, Lopez and Armstrong, responded to appellant and the victim’s residence. Lopez interviewed the victim outside.2 The victim had a cut and swelling to the top of her left eyebrow. She seemed panicked and she was crying. The victim informed Lopez that appellant was the person who had injured her. The victim informed Lopez that appellant drinks daily, and he is aggressive when he is intoxicated. The victim stated that appellant had been intoxicated that night, and he 1 In count I, the jury acquitted appellant of threatening to commit a crime (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)). In count III, the jury found it not true that, in the commission of intimidating a witness and/or victim, appellant did so in a malicious manner within the meaning of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (c). 2 Both appellant and the victim speak Spanish. Lopez speaks Spanish, and her interviews were conducted in that language. 2. had wanted the victim to look at his vehicle and a possible dent. Appellant had pushed the victim outside their residence. She had pushed back, and appellant punched her face. After striking her, appellant told the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals