California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 2015 No. E060242Unpublished
Filed 1/30/15 P. v. Houts CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E060242
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1300513)
WILLIAM HOWARD HOUTS, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Irma Poole Asberry,
Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, and Peter Quon, Jr. and Martin E. Doyle, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant William Howard Houts, Jr. shoplifted from a Walmart. After he left
the store, Walmart employees confronted him, but he threatened them with a knife.
When the police arrested him, he refused to obey their commands.
After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of second degree robbery (Pen.
Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), with an enhancement for the personal use of a deadly
2008: Four counts of unlawful use of personal identifying information, a felony
(Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)).
2010: Receiving a stolen motor vehicle, a felony (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).1
Defense counsel filed a written motion in limine to exclude evidence of
defendant’s prior convictions as irrelevant and as more prejudicial than probative.
At the hearing on motions in limine, defense counsel asked the trial court to admit
only the 2005, 2008, and 2010 convictions; he argued that the earlier convictions were
remote and unduly prejudicial.
The trial court excluded evidence of the two 1994 convictions, because defendant
had been a juvenile at the time. However, it overruled defendant’s objections to the other
ten convictions.2 It noted, “[T]here is not one that is more than two years apart from the
other. They happen very frequently. There are many. . . . [T]here’s sufficient
connection between the dates . . . to find that remoteness is not a reason for their
exclusion.”
1 Defendant also had four prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The prosecution did not try to admit these, as they are not crimes of moral turpitude. (See People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 317.) 2 Defendant seems to think only six convictions were admitted. There were six conviction dates (2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010). In 2003, however, he had been convicted of two distinct offenses. Similarly, in 2008, he had been convicted on four counts of the same offense. Thus, the trial court actually admitted a total of ten convictions.
11
Accordingly, defense counsel preemptively introduced evidence of these ten
convictions. The prosecutor also cross-examined defendant about them.
The trial court instructed the jury: “If you find that a witness has been convicted
of a felony, you may consider that fact only in evaluating the credibility of the witness’
testimony. The fact of a conviction does not necessarily destroy or impair a witness’
credibility. It is up to you to decide the weight of that fact and whether that fact makes
the witness less believable.” (CALCRIM No. 316.)
In closing argument, the prosecutor stated: “I am not getting up here and saying,
oh, he’s been convicted of a felony before so you should find him guilty now. That’s not
what this is about. The fact that he has been convicted of a felony that involves theft,
which involves moral turpitude, that’s for you in deciding whether or not he’s a credible
person. He was convicted of nine [sic] theft-related crimes — felonies between 2000 and
2010. He is the witness who has the — those convictions. He is the witness who’s not
credible.”
B. Analysis.
“Evidence of a prior conviction is admissible in a criminal case, subject to the
limitations of Evidence Code section 352, so long as the conviction involves moral
Div. Two], fn. omitted.) In this respect, “‘[a]dmissions of enhancements are subject to
the same principles as guilty pleas.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Westbrook (1996) 43
Cal.App.4th 220, 224.) Accordingly, defendant cannot challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence underlying this admission in this appeal.
Defendant’s admission alone is sufficient evidence that the enhancement is true.
As the People point out, it is conceivable that the probation report is incorrect.
Curiously, the probation officer claimed to be relying on information from the prosecutor;
at sentencing, however, the prosecutor took a very different position. If defendant had
not admitted the enhancement, the People would have had to prove it up, using primary
documents (such as minute orders and abstracts of judgment) rather than the probation
report. Because he did admit it, however, these materials are not in the record.
16
Defendant is not without a remedy. If the facts are as he claims they are, he
should be entitled to relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on factual
innocence and/or ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude, however, that he is not
entitled to any relief in this appeal.
V
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
MILLER J.
17
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's white supremacist beliefs, allowing impeachment with prior convictions, or imposing a prior prison term enhancement that the defendant had admitted.
Issues
Whether the introduction of evidence regarding the defendant's white supremacist beliefs violated his right to due process and a fair trial.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to impeach the defendant with ten prior felony convictions.
Whether the defendant could challenge the factual validity of a prior prison term enhancement on appeal after having admitted it in the trial court.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Defense counsel, on direct examination, elicited evidence about defendant’s tattoos and their meanings. Defendant does not claim that this constituted ineffective assistance. Thus, defendant cannot complain about the admission of this evidence.”
“Because defense counsel failed to object, we have no occasion to determine whether the prosecutor’s questions went beyond appropriate limits.”