People v. Rose CA4/2 ( 2015 )

Filed 3/20/15 P. v. Rose CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061479
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1302514)
WADE ELDEAN ROSE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark Mandio, Judge.
Affirmed.
Eric Cioffi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Wade Eldean Rose guilty of inflicting
corporal injury on Jane Doe, a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)1; count 1) and
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
1
using force on Jane Doe resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 3). The
jury also found true that in the commission of count 1, defendant personally inflicted
great bodily injury on Jane Doe (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).2 Defendant was sentenced to a
total term of three years in state prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We find
no error and affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of August 5, 2013, law enforcement received several
calls from a woman stating she was being held against her will. Riverside County
Sheriff’s Deputy Brian Burgess responded to the calls, and on his second visit, he noticed
a camper trailer on the back of the property and heard some audible noise. Deputy
Burgess knocked on the door of the trailer and defendant answered. When defendant
opened the door, the deputy heard a female crying somewhere within the trailer and
ordered all the occupants out of the trailer. Defendant and Jane Doe exited the trailer,
and Deputy Burgess separated them until a backup unit arrived. Deputy Burgess noticed
that Jane had several visible injuries and that she was limping. Deputy Burgess also
heard defendant tell Jane that he did not “mean for things to go as far as they did.”
2The jury was unable to reach a verdict on count 2, false imprisonment of Jane
Doe (§ 236), and the great bodily injury enhancement attached to count 3. The court later
dismissed count 2 and the great bodily injury enhancement attached to count 3.
2
After backup arrived, Deputy Burgess interviewed Jane alone.3 Jane, while
crying, reported that defendant, her former boyfriend, had physically assaulted her
resulting in her injuries. She also stated that defendant had given her a bloody nose,
causing blood smears in the bedroom of the trailer. She further asserted that the injuries
to her arms and legs were the result of defendant kicking her and that blood marks on the
walls of the trailer were from defendant dragging and pushing her down the hall. Deputy
Burgess took photographs of the trailer and the injuries to Jane. Jane had bruising,
abrasions, scrapes, cuts, and swelling on her face, arms, legs, and back areas.
Deputy Burgess examined the photographs he took of the blood splatter and
smears inside the trailer. Based on his training and experience in analyzing blood
evidence, Deputy Burgess opined that the blood evidence in the trailer was recent and did
not occur five or six hours prior to his contact with Jane at 2:00 a.m. Deputy Burgess
also concluded that Jane’s injuries appeared recent, explaining that Jane’s bruises began
to deepen and discolor from the time of his arrival until Jane’s transport to the hospital.
Based on his expertise in accident reconstruction, Deputy Burgess further opined that
Jane’s injuries were inconsistent with an ATV accident.
3 The audio recording of the interview was transcribed and played for the jury at
the time of trial.
3
Jane testified at trial and recanted her statements to Deputy Burgess. She claimed
that her injuries were the result of an ATV accident that occurred during the day of
August 4, 2013. She explained that she was riding an ATV with defendant and his
friend, Theresa Venable, and that during the ride, she had crashed her ATV and got very
“banged up.”
James McDonald, an investigator with the Riverside County District Attorney’s
office, testified that he had spoken with Jane after the incident. Jane informed the
investigator that defendant had asked her to lie about what had occurred on the day of the
incident.4 Jane also told the investigator that defendant had asked her to say that she had
sustained her injuries during an ATV accident while out riding with defendant and his
friend, Theresa.
In defense, defendant’s friend Theresa Venable testified and confirmed that
defendant and Jane rode ATV’s on a Sunday in August 2013. Venable stated that Jane
had crashed her ATV into a pillar and that she had observed some injuries to Jane’s
forearms.
Following trial, on June 6, 2014, the jury found defendant guilty of inflicting
corporal injury on Jane (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1) and using force on Jane resulting
in serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 3). The jury also found true that in the
commission of count 1, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on Jane
(§ 12022.7, subd. (e)).
4 The audio recording of the interview was transcribed and played for the jury at
the time of trial.
4
On June 20, 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three
years on count 1. The court struck the great bodily injury enhancement attached to
count 1 in the interest of justice. The court also imposed a middle term sentence of
three years on count 3, but stayed that sentence pursuant to section 654. The court
awarded defendant a total of 23 days for presentence custody credits.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed from the judgment, and we appointed counsel to represent
him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential
arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
5
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
KING
J.
6