People v. Newell CA2/6

Filed 9/15/25 P. v. Newell CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B329966 (Super. Ct. No. YA098948) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

RAFAEL PRESTON NEWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Rafael Preston Newell was convicted by jury of assault with a deadly weapon after he drove his car into the victim. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)1 Previously, he had been convicted of a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a “strike” prior (§ 1170.12). He has a history of mental illness and on this case, he was found incompetent to stand trial. He regained his sanity and after trial, was sentenced to the three-year midterm doubled by reason of the strike prior, for a total aggregate six-year term.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

He appeals contending that the trial court abused its discretion and should have imposed the low two-year term. But appellant was subject to a much longer sentence and the trial court treated him leniently. For example, it could have easily added five years for the prison prior. Because appellant’s contentions and the arguments in support thereof, are without merit, we affirm. Facts and Procedural Background We recite the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and sentence, as is required by the familiar rule governing appellate review. (People v. Avanessian (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 635, 637.) Appellant spent the night in his car in a parking lot. The victim, an employee of the business at the property, kept the parking lot orderly and clean. The victim saw appellant throwing his trash out of the car, picked it up, and put it on the hood of appellant’s car. A verbal argument ensued and various threats were made by the victim and appellant. Appellant drove away but made a U-turn and intentionally ran into the victim. Appellant testified at trial that he did not throw anything out of his car, the trash did not belong to him, and he wanted to know why the victim had disrespected him. Appellant testified that he believed the victim had a gun and was “forced to make contact with [the victim]” to avoid being shot. Appellant drove by the victim a couple of times before hitting him with his car. The jury heard and rejected appellant’s explanation of the events. The events were captured on video surveillance. The jury, as well as the trial court, viewed the entire event. The trial court expressly found that mental illness played a factor at the sentencing hearing. It heard evidence from appellant’s family, at length, concerning his being the victim of