People v. Dusharm CA3

Filed 6/6/25 P. v. Dusharm CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101690

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF23-02019)

v.

RAINY SKIES JACK DUSHARM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rainy Skies Jack Dusharm pleaded no contest to willful infliction of corporal injury on an intimate partner and assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant’s plea agreement contained a Cruz1 waiver that provided that if he completed a six-month residential treatment program, he would be granted probation. If he did not complete the program, defendant stipulated the trial court would impose a ten-year state prison term. Program staff removed defendant from the residential treatment program when he had completed only five months based on an interaction he had during a group session, and because he intimidated other members of the program thereafter. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that defendant violated the Cruz waiver and

1 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d. 1247 (Cruz).

1

sentenced him to the stipulated 10 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues that the residential treatment program’s intimidation rule was unconstitutionally vague. Further, he argues that there is no substantial evidence that he willfully violated the Cruz waiver. We shall affirm. BACKGROUND The complaint charged defendant with willful infliction of corporal injury on an intimate partner, assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury, and assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code,2 § 273.5, subd. (a)—count I; § 245, subd. (a)(4)— count II; § 245, subd. (a)(1)—count III.) The complaint further alleged defendant had a prior strike offense. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12.) Defendant stipulated to the following factual basis: “Defendant and the victim, . . . who had been dating for approximately three months, were at their residence. The Defendant had come home in a state that was described as being ‘blackout drunk.’ He started arguing with the victim and throwing items around the house, punching holes in the wall. He was initially upset because the front door had been left unlocked. The Defendant started hitting the victim in the face and choking her until she went unconscious. The victim described seeing white when she was being choked and had blurred vision in her left eye, constituting a traumatic condition. [¶] . . . [T]he victim went to the hospital to receive treatment for her injuries. [¶] At one point during the incident, the Defendant utilized a cord, and he did that in a way that made the cord a deadly weapon, by wrapping it around her throat and strangling her.” Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to count I and count III, and admitted he had a prior strike conviction. As part of the plea agreement, defendant would “be given one opportunity to do a residential treatment program of at least six months,” in exchange for pleading to both counts and admitting a prior strike.