People v. Everett

California Court of Appeal Sep 25, 1990 No. G008279Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who absconds and causes the destruction of trial records under Government Code section 69955 cannot claim a due process violation, particularly when the defendant fails to attempt to reconstruct the record via a settled statement.

Issues

Does the destruction of stenographic notes under Government Code section 69955 violate the due process rights of a defendant who fled the jurisdiction?
Is a defendant entitled to a new trial when trial records are destroyed due to the defendant's own culpable misconduct in absconding?
Must a defendant demonstrate that a settled statement is impossible to secure before a new trial is ordered for a missing transcript?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The operation of the statute worked a disadvantage on him by virtue of his voluntary absence.”

“Where transcript notes are unavailable, the defendant must show it is impossible to secure an adequate substitute for the missing transcript, before a new trial will be ordered.”

“The current state of the record is of Everett’s own making. He cannot be heard to complain of a due process violation.”

Synopsis

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

Opinion

SONENSHINE, Acting P. J.

Bruce Maynard Everett appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial (Pen. Code, § 1181, subd. 9) and a sentence to the upper term of eight years for forcible rape (Pen. Code, §261, subd. (2)), plus a consecutive three-year enhancement for use of a weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022.3, subd. (a)).

Everett and his wife separated in September of 1981. On the afternoon of September 13, he called Anita D., whom he had met at church in 1977, with the news of his separation. He had not had any contact with Anita for approximately a year. At the end of the conversation, he told her he would get in touch with her again the following week.

At 2 a.m. the next morning, Anita was awakened by her doorbell. She opened the door to find Everett, who complained he was ill and his truck had broken down. Anita agreed to drive him home and make sure he was safely in bed.

After arriving home, Everett walked into his bedroom, continuing to complain he was ill. Anita followed. Everett closed the bedroom door behind her, reached under a pile of clothing on the floor, and pulled out a handgun. He pointed it at her, ordering her to remove her clothing. When she refused, he pushed her onto the bed and removed her blouse. He then forced her to stand up and remove the rest of her clothes. Everett removed his own clothing, and raped her.

[935]

Anita managed to escape after approximately 20 minutes. Upon returning home, she reported the incident to the police.

On February 22, 1982, following a jury trial, Everett was found guilty of forcible rape and assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)); the jury also found Everett had personally used a deadly weapon, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.3, subdivision (a), and had used a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12022.5. Everett failed to appear for sentencing on March 19, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.

Pursuant to Government Code section 69955

and an administrative order,

People v. Everett

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III-V

AI Brief