People v. Payne CA4/2

Filed 1/11/23 P. v. Payne 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E079177
v. (Super. Ct. No. INF2101095)
JAMARCUS SEAN PAYNE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.
Affirmed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Jamarcus Sean Payne appeals after a jury convicted him
of misdemeanor spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)), a lesser included
1
offense of willfully inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a
spouse, cohabitant, fiancée, girlfriend, or child’s parent as charged in count 1 of the
information, and felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 2). 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, requesting this court to conduct an independent review
of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief
with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we
find no error and affirm the judgment.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and the victim, Jane Doe, had been in an “on and off” romantic
relationship for over 10 years. They had two children together, who were the ages of two
and 11 at the time of the incident. Jane also has another child, who was seven years old,
from another relationship.
On July 6, 2021, defendant and Jane lived together in a two bedroom apartment
with their two children, Jane’s other child, and Jane’s two nephews ages three and four.
That morning, defendant was preparing for a job interview while Jane prepared breakfast
for the children and spoke on the phone with her best friend, Jennifer. While Jane was on
the phone with Jennifer for about an hour, defendant asked Jane for her help in getting
the wrinkles out from his clothes. Not having an iron in the apartment, Jane decided to
boil a pot of water to release the wrinkles from defendant’s clothes via steam.
2
Believing Jane should be doing more to help him, defendant became frustrated
with Jane as she remained on the phone with her friend. An argument soon ensued with
defendant and Jane calling each other derogatory names. While throwing his clothes off
the balcony of their second story apartment, Jane eventually ordered defendant out of the
home. The argument escalated into a physical altercation. Defendant pushed Jane one or
two times, causing her to fall. Defendant then repeatedly punched Jane in the face and
upper body until their 11-year-old son told defendant to stop. When Jane informed
defendant that she was going to call the police, defendant asked her not to since he would
go to jail. Jane told defendant that she was calling the police because he had hit her and
1
called 911. Defendant left the apartment.
As a result of the physical altercation, Jane had cuts to her lip and a bruise on her
forehead that developed into a “bump.” Palm Springs Police Officer Baron Lane, who
was dispatched to Jane’s apartment on the day of the incident, observed a one-inch-
diameter swelling in the middle of Jane’s forehead, and in the middle of the swelling he
saw two eighth-inch lacerations. Officer Lane also saw a quarter inch laceration to Jane’s
upper lip. Jane estimated on a scale of one to 10, her pain level was at a seven.
At around 10:54 a.m., Officer Lane responded to a call of a “suspicious man
trespassing.” Officer Lane contacted defendant, who was sitting near the back of a
residence about a quarter mile from his and Jane’s apartment, and identified him as the
1
Jane’s 911 call was recorded and played for the jury at the time of trial.
3
2
suspect in the alleged domestic violence incident with Jane earlier that morning.
Defendant told Officer Lane that he believed people may have called the police since he
was jumping through their backyards while being chased.
The prosecution also introduced evidence of a recorded jail call between defendant
and Jane, which was recorded the night before Jane’s testimony. The recorded call
indicated defendant asked Jane to testify that she had started the incident when she
pushed defendant. Defendant also asked Jane to testify that the police were “extra in the
report.” Jane agreed. Defendant also reminded Jane, “no hands, just shoved, ok?” Jane
again agreed. Defendant told Jane, “I love you so much, and I’ll make this up to you I’ll
do whatever I gotta do, I’ll take care of the kids, I’ll let you have vacation time,
whatever.” When confronted with the jail phone call at trial, Jane testified she told the
jury the truth, and although she felt pressure from defendant, “[she] was not going to
come into court and lie.”
A maintenance worker for Palm Springs Desert Regional Medical Center was
present on July 6, 2021, when defendant was at the facility. As part of his employment,
the worker was asked to assess the damage defendant had caused to a room. The worker
estimated the following costs to repair the damage: $210-280 in labor based on six to
eight hours of work at $35 per hour for one person (two people worked on the repairs),
$150 to $200 to fix a light, $50 for a new safety glass, and $200 to $600 for a new IV
2
The contact was recorded in Officer Lane’s Body Worn Camera and played for
the jury at the time of trial.
4
pole that attaches to a gurney. The worker admitted he could not provide an exact dollar
amount, but estimated the total amount of damages to be in the thousands since the room
had to be shut down for a few days to make the repairs.
Defendant testified that because he was upset that he had spent the morning
getting ready for his interview and taking care of the kids while Jane remained on the
phone with her friend and not helping him, defendant called Jane a “‘lazy bitch.’” Jane
responded “with some verbal words,” and defendant called her “lame.” While on the
phone with her friend, Jane continued to yell at him. Defendant claimed that Jane
antagonized him, calling him names, and in turn, he called Jane names. Defendant used a
safety word, which signaled to the other that they needed to be left alone for five minutes
to avoid escalating fights. After defendant told Jane the safety word, Jane replied, “‘Fuck
that. Fuck whatever it is. Get the fuck out. I’m calling the police. I’m calling the
police, you little bitch’ . . . .” As defendant attempted to leave, Jane yelled, “‘This is
what you do. This is what you do. I’m calling the police. I’m calling the police. You’re
going to jail. You’re going to go to jail.’” After saying goodbye to the baby, defendant
left wearing no shirt or shoes. Jane began to throw his clothes out the door in front of the
neighbors, while calling him names and telling him to “‘get the fuck out.’” On the way
back to the apartment, he stopped at a grocery store where he ran into a neighbor. The
neighbor told him not to go back to the house because Jane had called the cops, and the
cops were “everywhere.” As he was going back to the apartment, three people carrying
objects came running after him and tried to attack him, but he took off running. He ran to
5
a nearby house where the resident called the police. He waited at the house until police
arrived.
Defendant denied hitting Jane, but admitted getting angry at her because she was
being inconsiderate by not helping him prepare for the interview. He admitted that he
could have been “nicer” with his words and believed Jane’s medication caused her to
become emotional and may have contributed to her escalating the incident. He denied
that he was telling Jane to lie in the jail call with Jane. He also denied hitting Jane with
his fist and causing Jane’s injuries. He claimed that he did not know how Jane had
sustained her injuries. Defendant admitted destroying property at Desert Regional
Medical Center as he was upset about everything happening.
On April 14, 2022, the jury convicted defendant of misdemeanor domestic
violence battery (Pen. Code, §243, subd. (e)(1)), the lesser included offense of inflicting
corporal injury causing traumatic injury as alleged in count 1 of the information, and
felony vandalism (count 2). The jury found the victim was not a “vulnerable victim”
within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), as alleged in count 1.
Defendant admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667,
subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)).
On June 10, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of four years
in state prison with 677 days credit for time served. The court ordered defendant to pay a
$300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $300 parole restitution fine
stayed pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). The court struck
6
the criminal operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and criminal
conviction fees (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential
arguable issue, 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.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-
442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
7
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
8