California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 2014 No. D062783Unpublished
Filed 1/14/14 P. v. Harris CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D062783
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD226968)
CURTIS HARRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, George W.
Clarke, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Jennifer
B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Curtis Harris of assault by means of force likely to cause great
bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. The trial court sentenced him to 14
years in prison. Harris appeals, contending he received ineffective assistance when
counsel failed to advocate for the court to instruct the jury that emotional trauma does not
constitute "serious bodily injury" in response to a jury note. He also contends the trial
does not render ineffective assistance by declining to raise meritless objections."].) Even
assuming, without deciding, that counsel was ineffective for not proposing an alternative
response, Harris failed to establish that, absent counsel's assumed error, it was reasonably
probable that the verdict would have been more favorable to him. Tannehill suffered a
loss of consciousness after the attack and was diagnosed with a "closed-head injury"
which is the same as a "concussion." Thus, even if the court had explicitly told the jury
5
that emotional suffering is not a serious bodily injury, it is not reasonably probable the
jury would have acquitted Harris.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified by reducing the section 1202.4, subdivision (b)
restitution fine imposed by the trial court from $33,660 to $3,360 and, as modified, the
judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to forward to the Department of
Corrections an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the above modification.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by referring the jury to existing instructions regarding the definition of serious bodily injury, and that defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by stipulating to that response. The court also ordered a modification to the abstract of judgment to correct a clerical error regarding the amount of a restitution fine.
Issues
Did the trial court violate Penal Code section 1138 or due process by failing to provide a specific response to a jury inquiry regarding emotional trauma?
Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to advocate for a specific instruction regarding emotional trauma?
Did the trial court err in the amount of the restitution fine listed in the abstract of judgment?
Disposition. Affirmed as modified.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Harris waived any objection because his counsel stipulated to the response.”
“The judgment is modified by reducing the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine imposed by the trial court from $33,660 to $3,360 and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed.”