People v. Seaton CA2/4

Filed 1/29/14 P. v. Seaton CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B246548

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA089436 v. consolidated with No. NA089702)

JAMAL SEATON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard R. Romero, Judge. Affirmed. Kevin Michele Finkelstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jamal Seaton appeals his conviction by jury verdict of one count of felony vandalism. His appointed counsel found no arguable issues for appeal. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant was charged with seven offenses arising from incidents occurring at two separate locations on the same day, one on West 19th Street in San Pedro and the other on Magnolia Street. One charge (count 3) was dismissed on the prosecution’s motion in the interests of justice. Of the remaining counts, appellant was found not guilty by the jury of all charges except count 6, felony vandalism at the residence at West 19th Street. That charge arose out of an altercation with his former girlfriend, Kameron C. We therefore confine our review and discussion to the single count on which appellant was convicted and sentenced. Kameron C. testified that she began dating appellant in 2004 and continued to see him off and on until sometime in 2010. He is the father of her five-year-old twin daughters. She and appellant did not stay in contact after ending the relationship and Kameron did not consider him to be a friend. On July 5, 2011, Kameron, the twins, and her dog lived on West 19th Street. Appellant was not allowed to come to her home or to visit the children without permission. At 2:20 in the morning, Kameron was sleeping in the bedroom with her daughters. She was woken by the noise of the front gate to the house opening. Then she heard a noise at the window. She looked and saw appellant at the window. At first he was yelling, but she could not make out what he was saying through the closed window. When she saw appellant, Kameron started to dial 911 on her cordless telephone because she had a restraining order against him. Appellant slid the unlocked window open and reached inside. Kameron threw the telephone. The dog was on the bed right under the window. Appellant grabbed the dog and tried to pull it through the window. Kameron held onto the dog and a struggle followed. Appellant banged Kameron’s arms against the windowsill and hit her, but was unable to get possession of the dog.