People v. Oicles CA6

Filed 7/3/25 P. v. Oicles CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051339 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. B1795099)

v.

CHRISTOPHER TODD OICLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Christopher Todd Oicles appeals from his convictions for stalking, criminal threats, several drug offenses, and unlawful weapons possession. Oicles’s sole argument on appeal is that the drug and weapons charges against him were improperly joined with the stalking and criminal threats charges. Because Oicles has not shown that joinder of these charges caused a miscarriage of justice, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND The facts recounted below are drawn from the record, including the evidence presented at trial, which is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. (See People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 795.) In November 2017, Oicles was charged with six offenses. The first charge was stalking S.D., a colleague from work, between March 2017 and November 2017. (To protect the privacy of the victim, we use initials to refer to her. (Cal. Rules of Court,

rule 8.90(b)(4).) Oicles also was charged with making a criminal threat against S.D. on or about November 22, 2017. Finally, Oicles was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substances while armed, manufacturing a controlled substance, and two counts of possession of an assault weapon. Before trial, Oicles moved to sever the drug and weapons charges from the stalking and criminal threats charges. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Observing that the police discovered the evidence underlying the drug and weapons charges in serving a protective order on Mr. Oicles related to the stalking and criminal threat charges, the trial court reasoned that all the charges against Oicles in the second trial were “part of a continuous course of investigation.” The court also found the danger of prejudice outweighed by the benefits of joinder because the drug and weapons charges were unlikely to unusually inflame the jury against Oicles and the stalking and criminal threats charges were well supported. At trial S.D. testified that she worked at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) where Oicles, whom she had met through her ex-husband, also worked. Beginning in January 2017, S.D. started encountering Oicles when she took smoking breaks outside and had friendly conversations with him. In February or March 2017, after Oicles told her that he had been ill and had no one to help him, S.D. gave Oicles her phone number. A month or two later, Oicles texted S.D. from a bathroom at AMD that he needed help. After finding Oicles on the floor surrounded by blood, S.D. told a security guard that Oicles needed help. Oicles said to the guard that S.D. would take him home, but she refused, and the guard instead called an ambulance which took Oicles to the hospital. A few hours later, Oicles returned and complained to S.D. about the cost of the ambulance. Around the same time, Oicles texted S.D. that he was “very in love” with her. When S.D. told Oicles that she did not share his feelings, things turned “very bad.” Oicles said he would put his hand inside her vagina and gestured obscenely. S.D. was shocked, and the next day she told Oicles that what he had said was hurtful and