People v. Wise CA1/5

Filed 5/12/25 P. v. Wise CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172566

v. (San Bernardino County LARRY WISE, Super. Ct. No. FSB22000465) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Larry Wise (appellant) appeals following his conviction for making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422)1 and other charges. Appellant contends the criminal threat conviction is not supported by substantial evidence. We reject the claim, but we direct that the abstract of judgment be corrected in two respects. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by information with attempted forcible spousal rape (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 664; count one), making a criminal threat (§ 422; count two), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count three), inflicting

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

This matter was transferred by California Supreme Court order on February 25, 2025, from the Fourth Appellate District (No. E083527) to the First Appellate District.

1

corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count four), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count five). In November 2023, a jury convicted appellant of the criminal threat charge in count two, a lesser included simple assault charge in count three (§ 240), and a lesser included battery against a spouse charge in count four (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). The jury acquitted appellant of counts one and five. In February 2024, the trial court imposed a two-year sentence on the criminal threat charge. The court awarded custody credits totaling 41 days, but the corresponding minute order and abstract of judgment state zero days of credits were awarded. The court also reduced a $600 restitution fine to $300, but the corresponding minute order and abstract of judgment state the $600 fine was imposed. The present appeal followed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND During the evening on February 15, 2022, two San Bernardino Police Department officers were dispatched to a house to investigate a report of domestic violence. At the house, the officers contacted the victim, S.W. An officer testified S.W. appeared nervous and reluctant to cooperate.2 The officer said, “I’m here to help you, ma’am. Okay? . . . What happened? Explain to me. Be honest, huh?” S.W. told the officer that she and appellant were married and had twin boys together; she also had an 18-year-old son from a previous relationship. On February 13, 2022, the day of the Super Bowl, appellant was drinking in the garage with friends. Later, at 4:00 a.m., appellant, who was drunk, woke S.W. and tried to have sex with her. S.W. was tired and told appellant,