People v. Hall CA2/3
Filed 3/24/14 P. v. Hall CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B243504
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA052734) v.
TIMOTHY DANIEL HALL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded with directions. Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback II and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Defendant and appellant, Timothy Daniel Hall, appeals his conviction for making criminal threats (2 counts), attempting to dissuade a witness, and corporal injury to a spouse, with two prior serious felony conviction findings (Pen. Code, §§ 422, 136.1, subd. (a)(2), 273.5, 667, subds. (a)-(i)).1 He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 15 years and 8 months. The judgment is affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established the following. 1. Prosecution evidence. In May 2011,2 Candace S. was married to defendant Hall although they were no longer living together. They had been married for five years, with two young children, and they separated in September 2010 because Hall was abusive. During the months leading up to the current incident they saw each other occasionally. Candace sometimes had warm feelings for Hall and wanted him to be involved in their children’s lives. On May 4, Hall called to say he had checked into a rehab program, had not eaten for days, and needed a place to stay. Candace agreed to let him stay at her house. They got along at first and even had sex, but Candace warned Hall this did not mean they were getting back together. On the evening of May 5, they argued about their relationship. When Candace said she didn’t want to get back together, Hall got mad and threatened to kill her. Candace was frightened because of the look in Hall’s eyes and his violent history. They eventually went to sleep.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)