P.v. Mears CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/14/24 P.v. Mears CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B333490
(Super. Ct. No. BA503765)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
TIMOTHY ROBERT MEARS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Timothy Mears appeals the judgment after a jury convicted
him of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187; count 1),
simple mayhem (§ 203; count 2), assault with a deadly weapon
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and aggravated mayhem (§ 205;
count 4). The jury also found true the allegations that he
personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) for counts
1 and 2 and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury
(§ 12022.7) as to counts 1 and 3. The trial court sentenced him to
1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
life in prison with the possibility of parole (count 4 as the
principal term and stayed counts 1-3 pursuant to § 654).
Mears contends his conviction for aggravated mayhem
should be reversed because there was no substantial evidence he
intended to maim or disfigure the victim. He also contends, and
the Attorney General concedes, the simple mayhem conviction
(count 2) should be reversed because it is a lesser included offense
of aggravated mayhem (count 4). We modify the judgment to
reverse count 2 but otherwise affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In March 2022, W.Y. was walking on a sidewalk in Los
Angeles Chinatown in the afternoon when he encountered Mears.
W.Y. and Mears had never met before. Mears and W.Y. made
brief eye contact, and Mears was muttering something loudly.
Mears put his hands on W.Y.’s shoulders to stop him from
walking. When W.Y. tried to go around him, Mears hit W.Y. “a
couple of times” on the head. W.Y. felt something piercing his
skin on the back of his head and noticed he was bleeding “a lot”
from the back and side of the head.
W.Y. tried to restrain Mears by tackling him to the ground.
When he tackled him, Mears dropped a knife he was holding.
Mears bit W.Y. on his left arm twice while he was restrained. At
some point while Mears was still restrained, he picked up the
knife and continued to stab W.Y.
A bystander saw Mears attacking W.Y. He described
Mears throwing a “big haymaker punch”2 and then punching
W.Y. approximately 10 times. He saw W.Y.’s face and neck were
covered in blood and realized Mears was stabbing W.Y. He saw
2 He explained that a haymaker is a “big, rounded,
dramatic punch.”
2
W.Y. reach for Mears’s hand that was holding the knife to try to
stop the stabbing.
An anonymous witness called 911 to report that a man was
stabbing another man. The witness said the other man was
“trying to hold the guy down so he doesn’t stab him anymore.”
Another bystander recorded on their cell phone a video depicting
a portion of the incident, in which the two men were on the
ground.
Los Angeles Police Sergeant Janet Kim responded to the
scene. As she approached the two men, she observed W.Y. on top
of Mears trying to hold him down to the ground. She drew her
firearm and ordered the men to stop. When W.Y turned his head
to look at Sergeant Kim, Mears “stabbed [W.Y.] in the groin.”
Sergeant Kim separated the two men and had W.Y. sit down
against a wall and had Mears lie on his stomach. Sergeant Kim
located a knife next to Mears’s right leg by the curb.
Firefighter paramedics arrived on scene to treat W.Y. One
paramedic testified that W.Y. stood out because of the amount of
slash wounds on him. W.Y. also had one stab wound (a puncture)
to the left armpit area. The paramedic was concerned that the
stab wound punctured the lung or that the injury could lead to
respiratory distress. Another paramedic treated Mears at the
scene. He had no slash or stab wounds.
W.Y. was transported to the hospital, where he remained
for three or four days. He had a two-inch scar and a half-inch
scar below his elbow from Mears’s bite. He had multiple
lacerations to his head, face, neck, and throat and a stab wound
to his shoulder. He also had a wound to his groin area. His neck
and face injuries required stitches. The doctors told W.Y. he had
3
to be circumcised due to his groin injuries, and his penis remains
crooked.
The emergency room physician, who treated W.Y., testified
that W.Y. suffered multiple lacerations to the left and right side
of his face, behind his ear, neck, shoulder, penis, and scrotum.
The neck wound required about nine stitches. The physician also
testified the lacerations behind the ear and under the jaw
required stitches. W.Y.’s “deepest of injuries” was to the back of
the shoulder. The physician testified that the injuries, if left
untreated, could result in scars and infection.
DISCUSSION
Aggravated mayhem
Mears concedes there was sufficient evidence of a
permanent disfiguring injury for aggravated mayhem. But he
contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding
that he specifically intended to maim or disfigure W.Y, requiring
reversal. We are not persuaded.
A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem if the person
“unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another
person, intentionally causes permanent disability or
disfigurement of another human being or deprives a human being
of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body.” (§ 205.)
Both simple mayhem under section 203 and aggravated
mayhem under section 205 require the disfiguring injury be
permanent. The difference between simple and aggravated
mayhem is the requisite criminal intent. (People v. Newby (2008)
167 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1347-1348.) Unlike simple mayhem,
which is a general intent crime, aggravated mayhem is a “specific
intent crime which requires proof the defendant specifically
4
intended to cause the maiming injury, i.e., the permanent
disability or disfigurement. [Citation.] ‘[S]pecific intent may be
inferred from the circumstances attending an act, the manner in
which it is done, and the means used, among other factors.’
[Citation.] Thus evidence of a ‘controlled and directed’ attack or
an attack of ‘focused or limited scope’ may provide substantial
evidence of such specific intent. [Citation.] However, where the
evidence shows no more than an ‘indiscriminate’ or ‘random’
attack, or an ‘explosion of violence’ upon the victim, it is
insufficient to prove a specific intent to maim.” (People v.
Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1162 (Quintero), overruled
on other grounds in People v. Poisson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 121,
125; see also People v. Park (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 61, 64 (Park).)
Evidence of “ ‘a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably
circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as
direct evidence to support a conviction. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]”
(Park, at p. 68.)
We review sufficiency of evidence challenges to the
judgment of conviction for substantial evidence. Thus, we review
the whole record to determine whether the evidence is such that
a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence reasonably justifies
the trier of fact’s finding, we do not reverse even if the evidence
might also justify a contrary finding. (Park, supra, 112
Cal.App.4th at p. 68.) We do not reweigh evidence. The
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the
evidence are exclusively within the province of the trier of fact.
(People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.)
Here, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that
Mears had a specific intent to maim or disfigure W.Y. The attack
5
was mostly directed at a vulnerable area of W.Y.’s body—his
head. Several cases have held that similar focused attacks to a
victim’s head support a specific intent to maim. (See Park, supra,112 Cal.App.4th at p. 69 [“Defendant’s limiting the scope of his
attack to [the victim’s] head shows this was not an indiscriminate
attack but instead was an attack guided by the specific intent of
inflicting serious injury upon [the victim’s] head”]; Quintero,
supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163 [the defendant used a
retractable bladed knife in an uppercut motion to slash the
victim’s face many times]; People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th
40, 88 [gunshots fired in close range hitting in the face and upper
arm near the face reasonably supports the inference the
defendant focused his attack on the victim’s head, which was a
particularly vulnerable part of the body]; People v. Campbell
(1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1653, 1668-1669 [the focused attack on the
victim’s face and head, rather than random attacks on the body,
was evidence of the defendant’s intent to disfigure that area of
the victim’s body].)
The evidence showed that Mears attacked W.Y.’s head with
a knife and slashed him several more times near the head. The
jury considered photographs of all W.Y.’s injuries, including the
multiple slashes to W.Y.’s head, neck, and shoulder. It also heard
the testimony of witnesses, including one bystander who testified
regarding the manner of attack and seeing Mears throw a
“haymaker” punch to the head. Other witnesses testified
regarding the extent of W.Y.’s injuries to his head and neck area.
The jury was also able to see W.Y. and the scars on his head
when he testified in court. A jury could reasonably conclude from
this evidence that Mears intended to disfigure W.Y. based on his
manner of attack.
6
Mears compares this case to People v. Sears (1965) 62
Cal.2d 737 and People v. Lee (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 320 (Lee) to
argue that Mears’s attacks were indiscriminate and random such
that they lacked any specific intent. But those cases are
distinguishable. In Sears, the defendant began hitting his wife
with a steel pipe when her daughter came in between the
defendant and her mother. (Sears, at p. 741.) The defendant
struck the daughter “several times with a steel pipe” with “one of
the blows result[ing] in a laceration of the lip; another, a
laceration of the nose.” (Id. at p. 745.) She also suffered a fatal
knife wound which punctured her jugular vein. (Id. at p. 741.)
The court concluded that “such evidence does no more than
indicate an indiscriminate attack.” (Id. at p. 745.) Unlike Sears,
W.Y. did not intervene in an ongoing attack, but rather, the
attack began when Mears started striking W.Y. in the head
multiple times. The multiple attacks were mostly targeted near
the head area, resulting in lacerations in the face, neck, throat,
and a stab wound in the shoulder. Mears later focused his attack
on another vulnerable part of W.Y.’s body by stabbing him in the
groin.
In Lee, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 326, the defendant
punched his victim in the face three times and kicked him at
least twice somewhere on the body. There was no evidence the
kicks were directed at the head. (Ibid.) As a result of injury to
the head, the victim suffered head trauma and was paralyzed.
(Id. at p. 323.) The court found the evidence “shows no more than
a sudden, indiscriminate, and unfocused battering of [the
victim’s] body” such that a reasonable jury could not infer the
defendant harbored a specific intent to disable the victim. (Id. at
p. 326.) Unlike Lee, the jury had the benefit of reviewing
7
photographs of the injuries and seeing the scars on W.Y. when he
testified in court. The jury also heard testimony regarding W.Y.’s
account of the attack and his injuries and another witness’s
description of the attack. The evidence is thus sufficient for a
reasonable jury to conclude that Mears harbored an intent to
maim or disfigure.
Count 2
Mears contends and the Attorney General concedes the
simple mayhem conviction (count 2) must be reversed because it
is a lesser included offense of the aggravated mayhem conviction
(count 4). A defendant may not be convicted of both a greater and
a lesser included offense. (People v. Medina (2007) 41 Cal.4th
685, 701-702.) The prosecutor argued that Mears was guilty of
both simple and aggravated mayhem based on all the same
injuries to W.Y. We therefore reverse the conviction on count 2
for simple mayhem. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The conviction on count 2 for simple mayhem is reversed.
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of
judgment and forward a copy to the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.
8
Henry J. Hall, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and William H. Shin,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.