People v. Blount CA3

California Court of Appeal Jul 10, 2014 No. C072742Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior uncharged misconduct because it was not relevant to the charged offenses, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior uncharged misconduct.
Whether the erroneous admission of prior uncharged misconduct was prejudicial to the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since the prior uncharged misconduct was not even marginally relevant to the charge at issue, the trial court erred in admitting it.”

“In light of the compelling evidence of guilt, we conclude it is not reasonably probable defendant would have received a more favorable result at trial if the prior uncharged misconduct had not been admitted and the error was therefore harmless.”

Filed 7/10/14 P. v. Blount CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072742

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F07200)

REGINALD BLOUNT,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Reginald Blount guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor vandalism. The jury sustained two prior conviction allegations and the trial court found the priors were serious felonies and strikes. The trial court sentenced defendant to 35 years to life. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously admitted prior uncharged misconduct evidence and he is entitled to additional conduct credits. We shall affirm.

FACTS On October 18, 2011, Avery Blount (Blount) was living with defendant (his father), his son, mother, and brother. When he came home that day, there was an outdoor barbecue for his birthday. Among the attendees were his cousins David Beckhorn, Richard Harris, and Michael Plunkett. Defendant arrived at the party later in the evening. He was angry and drunk and started arguing with a neighbor named Chin. Defendant yelled at Chin and threatened to “beat his ass.” He temporarily left the party; when he returned, defendant continued to yell profanity at Chin. Blount told defendant to stop swearing, but defendant ignored him. Defendant got upset with Blount for taking sides and not allowing him to fight Chin. Defendant went into Blount’s house several times, returning outside “yelling and cursing and throwing a bike in the middle of the street.” Defendant also threatened Harris and swore at him. Blount and his cousins went in his house with defendant and tried to calm him down, but were unsuccessful. After Blount and his cousins walked outside and said, “we quit,” defendant came outside, ready to fight Blount. Defendant told Blount he owed him for the last time.1 He put up his hands like he was going to fight Blount and then lunged at him. Beckhorn tried to stop the attack by

People v. Blount CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C072742

REGINALD BLOUNT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ROBIE , J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief