People v. Hammond CA3

Filed 2/14/25 P. v. Hammond CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100477

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CR1857)

v.

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHE HAMMOND,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Michael Christophe Hammond guilty of resisting an executive officer. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in county jail. On appeal, defendant argues his conviction violated the First Amendment because the statements he made were not “true threats.” He further argues there is insufficient evidence he had the requisite specific intent. Finally, he contends he is entitled to one additional day of actual custody credit, which the People concede. We will modify the judgment to award 270 days of custody credit (135 actual days and 135 conduct days), affirm the judgment as modified, and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the judgment as modified. I. BACKGROUND The information charged defendant with trespass and deterring or preventing an executive officer from performing an official duty by the use of force and violence. (Pen.

1

Code,1 §§ 69, 602, subd. (k).) The information further alleged circumstances in aggravation, including that defendant used a weapon in the crime, had prior convictions as an adult that were numerous and of increasing seriousness, and that he served a prior prison term. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a), (b).) The facts at trial are undisputed. A customer alerted a local gas station manager that a shopping cart was blocking one of the driveways to the station. The manager went around back, saw the cart, and heard noises from the bushes. The manager called out and asked the person to move his cart. The person was angry and responded with abusive language and told the manager, “If I come out, I’ll kill you.” The manager was a “little bit” afraid and walked away. He called the police nonemergency number. Police Officer Michael Pullmann responded. When he arrived at the gas station, he approached the defendant and “it escalated from there.” The officer announced his presence and saw the defendant crouched in the bushes. There were items around defendant, including “a shovel head, [a] large stick, [and] numerous empty alcoholic beverages.” Pullmann told defendant the manager wanted him to leave. Defendant responded by yelling and screaming at the officer and saying that he was going to kill him. Defendant was extremely agitated, upset, and angry. Defendant was crouched down in the bushes about six to eight feet from the officer and holding a two-foot-long stick above his head the officer described as “in the shape of a pickaxe, both of the tops had pointed sides.” The officer felt unsafe, stepped back, and pulled out his Taser. The officer directed defendant to drop the stick a number of times and to get down. Eventually, defendant dropped the stick but started screaming and yelling again and this time he picked up the head of a flathead shovel. Again, he shouted he was going to kill the officer. His demeanor was angry, agitated, and irrational. The officer testified