People v. Chavez CA3

Filed 9/20/24 P. v. Chavez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C099194

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19FE011573)

PEDRO CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Pedro Chavez punched N.D. multiple times in the face, causing injuries to her nose and mouth. N.D. testified that defendant had restrained her, raped her, and tried to suffocate her. When she bit him to get away, he punched her repeatedly. Defendant described a different version of events, saying he awoke to find N.D. on top of him. He tried to push her off, she bit his fingers, and he punched her. A jury acquitted defendant of rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and false imprisonment, but convicted him of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury found true an allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury during the assault, but it also found not true the allegation that the crime involved great violence or other circumstances disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in state prison.

1

Defendant now contends (1) the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte on his right to stand his ground and not retreat from an assault, and also his right to use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a felony; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the great bodily injury enhancement without being aware of its discretion to dismiss the enhancement, and in concluding that defendant was ineligible for probation without finding that he willfully inflicted great bodily injury. Concluding that defendant’s contentions are forfeited or lack merit, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On the evening of May 27, 2019, defendant went to the house of his sisters Daniela and Gabriela. Gabriela was staying at her boyfriend’s house that night, so defendant planned to sleep in her room. Earlier in the day, Daniela went to San Francisco with her boyfriend and others, including N.D., a friend she met at Sacramento City College. They returned to the house at around midnight. Defendant was in Gabriela’s room when they arrived. When Daniela and her group got to the house, they started playing music, hanging out, and drinking beer. Defendant eventually emerged from Gabriela’s room and joined them in the living room. Defendant, who was 18 at the time, drank three or four beers and became intoxicated. N.D., who was 19 years old at the time, had a couple of beers. At some point, Daniela and her boyfriend got into an argument and went outside. N.D. came outside and said she was going to sleep in Gabriela’s room with defendant. N.D. explained, “I’ll sleep by his feet so it’s not weird or anything.” Daniela went inside to check on defendant, who was “passed out” on the couch. She nudged him awake and asked if he was okay, and he asked her to get him a pillow. N.D. pulled on defendant’s leg and suggested they go to his sister’s room, saying she would take care of him. Defendant got up and accompanied N.D. to Gabriela’s room. Daniela followed them