P. v. Hunt CA1/3

Filed 7/31/13 P. v. Hunt CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138049 v. JOHN HOWARD HUNT, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC076557) Defendant and Appellant.

John Howard Hunt (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664 subd. (a)1), admitted the offense was a serious and violent felony (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 667.5, subd. (c)(8)), and admitted a domestic violence great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An information was filed on September 28, 2012, charging appellant with attempted premeditated murder (§§ 187, 189, 664, subd. (a), count one), corporal injury of a spouse resulting in traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count two), assault with a

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

1

deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count three), assault likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), count four), and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a), count five). The information alleged a domestic violence great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) as to counts one through four and further alleged as to all counts that the offenses were serious and violent felonies (§§ 1192.7, subds. (c)(8), (20), (23), (39), 667.5, subds. (c)(8), (12), (14)). The information was based on an incident that occurred on May 5, 2012.2 The victim, Susan Boyer, and appellant had been married for over 20 years at the time of the incident. Before the incident occurred, Boyer had been spending most of her time in Half Moon Bay while appellant lived in San Diego County. They spoke on the phone everyday, spent time together every couple of months, and went on some trips and attended events together. On the night before the incident, Boyer and appellant were together in Half Moon Bay when Boyer told appellant she wanted a divorce. Appellant was “[k]ind of sad and mad,” did not want the divorce, and said “stuff like” “ ‘I suppose now you’re going to want my money so you can buy or build a house.’ ” Appellant further told Boyer that he had been miserable during the “last 12 years,” that Boyer was a “mean, mean person,” and that “karma was going to get [her].” The conversation lasted “[m]aybe an hour or two” and “it was very emotional.” The next morning, the two met for breakfast in Pacifica where appellant asked Boyer if she had “told anybody” about the divorce and accused Boyer of not “know[ing] how to be intimate.” The conversation took place over breakfast and no voices were raised. After they finished breakfast, they got inside Boyer’s car and appellant drove the two back towards Half Moon Bay. At some point, appellant pulled off at a “dirt spot,” which she did not think was unusual because she assumed he was stopping to “take a pee.” Appellant was gone for a couple of minutes, returned to the car, and drove to a small, wooded, secluded paved road, just below where they had parked. Appellant turned the car around on this road, then got out of the car. He came to the passenger side of the