People v. Edwards CA3

Filed 2/10/15 P. v. Edwards CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C074715

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F00015)

v.

MARK EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

As might be expected, a bicyclist is at a distinct disadvantage when pitted against a truck driver in a classic case of road rage. A jury found the truck driver, Mark Edwards, guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, his truck, and brandishing a knife after he pursued the cyclist through the streets of East Sacramento, struck the bike, and pulled out a knife. On appeal, he contends there is not substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that he brandished a deadly weapon, the court failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on self-defense, and his lawyer provided inadequate representation by failing to assert self-defense. Finding no merit to his appeal, we affirm.

1

I Because defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we will report the facts derived from the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution and draw all inferences in support of the judgment. (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 553; People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 640.) As defendant points out, the evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value to meet the prosecution’s burden to prove each element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 260-261.) As a court of review we are not at liberty to reweigh any of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses, or to superimpose our judgment on reasonable findings by the trier of fact. (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514; People v. Poe (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 826, 830.) With these basic principles in mind, we turn to the evidence as to what occurred on the evening of October 24, 2011. The Evidence Johann Karkheck, a seasoned bicyclist, was riding his bike home after work as he did every day. He did not own a car. As he rode east on Folsom Boulevard, a truck passed him and then accelerated, leaving a thick cloud of smoke in his face. He kept riding but was again hit with a cloud of smoke. He saw passengers in the truck pointing at him and laughing, and believing the driver was intentionally creating the smoke, he became angry and “flipped . . . off” the occupants. As Karkheck passed the truck, he “high-fived” the passenger-side mirror. He stopped at a red light, and as the truck approached, one of the occupants yelled out, “[H]ey, you broke the mirror.” Karkheck responded, “That’s what you get for being a jerk.” He acknowledged at trial that his behavior only inflamed the situation. The passenger jumped out of the truck and struck Karkheck on the left side of his head. Karkheck grabbed his bike lock and instructed the passenger to get away. By then, the driver had run up to him aggressively and tried to grab him, and two other passengers followed and were yelling at him, but Karkheck jumped on his bike to escape.