People v. Galindo CA2/6

Filed 3/19/25 P. v. Galindo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B331990 (Super. Ct. No. 2021016519) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

PEDRO GONZALEZ GALINDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pedro Gonzalez Galindo appeals following a trial at which a jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(2); count 2).1 The trial court placed appellant on a grant of felony probation for 36 months subject to terms and conditions, including 365 days to be served in county jail. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient as to the assault with a deadly weapon count because he lacked the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

present ability to injure his ex-girlfriend when he cut a brake line in her car. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Cynthia Nodinesmith and appellant were in a relationship for about five years and were engaged at one point. Nodinesmith described appellant as jealous. She broke up with him after learning he was having an affair. Appellant called and texted Nodinesmith, contacted her family, and sent flowers to convince her to reunite. About two months later, the two reconciled. In August 2020, they broke up again because appellant “still had issues with jealousy and was not wanting to discuss the cheating . . . .” Appellant sent Nodinesmith long texts and one day called her approximately ten times consecutively until she picked up. Nodinesmith told appellant she wanted him to stop and that she was “done.” In the ensuing weeks, appellant sent her numerous text messages in an effort to reconcile once again. Nodinesmith’s responses were very limited and short. She did not want to encourage appellant. On October 18, 2020, Nodinesmith arranged to meet a friend, Michelle Cassiadoro, at the Santa Clara parking garage in Ventura. Nodinesmith had no vehicle issues during the roughly 40-minute drive to Ventura. She parked on the garage’s fourth floor. She and her friend walked out to Main Street. Based on surveillance video, appellant’s car entered the garage at around the same time Cassiadoro was waiting for Nodinesmith on the first floor. At one point, appellant’s car was about 20 to 30 feet from Nodinesmith. Appellant’s car was in the garage for about seven minutes. Earlier in the day, appellant had met his friend Craig Young at Ventiki, a bar in downtown Ventura. They sat outside