People v. Tovar CA4/3

Filed 1/17/25 P. v. Tovar CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062507

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CF1392)

JAVIER TOVAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Scott A. Steiner, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Michael J. Patty, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * [1] Javier Tovar was convicted of mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203) and assault with intent to commit great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(4)), based upon an incident in which he and a codefendant attacked a fellow inmate on behalf of the Mexican Mafia. Tovar appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his mayhem conviction, and that the judgment does not accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The Attorney General concedes that the judgment must be modified to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement, and points out additional inaccuracies that must be corrected. We agree the judgment must be modified and remand the case to the trial court for that purpose. However, we reject Tovar’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate either that the victim’s eye injury was caused by the assault or that it was permanent. Although the victim refused to testify when he appeared at trial, the jury reasonably could infer from the fact he received follow-up testing of his vision in the months following the attack that he was not already blind in his damaged eye when the attack occurred. His treating physician also testified that, because of the damage inflicted on the victim’s eye and the persistence of his blindness in that eye over a period of months, his sight would not be restored. We therefore affirm the mayhem conviction.