People v. Daranikone-Nunn CA3

Filed 8/15/25 P. v. Daranikone-Nunn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101044

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFE20230007882) v.

REID MACKEY DARANIKONE-NUNN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Reid Mackey Daranikone-Nunn of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, defrauding an innkeeper, and vandalism. On appeal defendant claims the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and that his counsel was ineffective. He also contends the trial court violated Penal Code1 section 654’s prohibition on multiple punishments. The People argue the trial court had no duty to instruct on self-defense and defendant harbored multiple independent criminal objectives. We affirm.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the early morning hours of July 2023, defendant and two friends entered a diner after a night of drinking. Victim, C.Z., managed the night shift at the diner and C.V. worked as a server. C.Z. waited on defendant and his friends as they ordered food and drinks. As C.Z. prepared the check for the table, defendant and his friends left the table and approached C.Z. C.Z. offered the check to the group but defendant ignored him and continued to the exit of the diner. Believing the group was attempting to leave without paying, C.Z. walked past the group toward the front door. Defendant’s friends ran past C.Z. and left the diner. Defendant attempted to run past C.Z. too, pushing C.Z. with his elbow. When C.Z. told defendant that there were cameras and that defendant needed to wait for the sheriff to arrive, defendant became “aggressive” and pushed C.Z. in the chest. Defendant continued to push C.Z. into the lobby of the diner. Defendant then attempted to knock down C.Z. by grabbing for C.Z.’s legs and then his waist. Defendant moved behind C.Z. and put him in a choke hold for approximately five minutes. As C.Z. struggled to get free from defendant’s choke hold, he fell to his knees and held onto a door for support. Defendant continued to squeeze C.Z.’s neck until C.Z. heard a crack in his throat and lost consciousness for one to two seconds. While defendant choked the victim, C.V. called 911. When C.Z. regained consciousness, defendant released the choke hold, and C.Z. told defendant to leave the diner. Defendant temporarily left and then returned two to three times and continued to attack C.Z., attempting to put C.Z.’s head through a window and kicking and punching him. C.Z. told defendant he was free to leave, and defendant left the diner. C.Z. then closed the door. Defendant returned again and started pulling on the door, eventually breaking it off the hinges. Sheriff’s deputies arrived shortly afterward and arrested