People v. Yates CA4/3

Filed 2/10/15 P. v. Yates CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050275

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI-1100266)

DANA FITZGERALD YATES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, John B. Gibson, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Linh Lam, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant was convicted of a variety of crimes for assaulting and threatening his girlfriend. On appeal, he contends: 1) His character witness was subjected to improper cross-examination; 2) the trial court should have stayed his sentence for making a criminal threat; and 3) the judgment must be modified to correctly reflect the trial court’s sentencing decision. We agree with appellant’s third contention and modify the judgment accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTS In January 2010, 16-year-old Charlene D. met appellant, then age 42, through an online chat group. Within a week, they were dating and having sex, and eight months later, Charlene ran away from home and moved in with appellant. They shared an apartment with a woman named Barbara, who was 47 years old. Appellant told Charlene that Barbara was his cousin, but Charlene soon found out Barbara was another one of appellant’s girlfriends. Even though Barbara and appellant had a sexual relationship, that didn’t bother Charlene. In fact, she liked Barbara and often had “threesomes” in bed with her and appellant. But this living arrangement didn’t last long. On the night of September 30, 2010, appellant and Barbara had an argument, and she left the apartment with her belongings. The next morning, appellant told Charlene she had to move out because Barbara and her sons might be coming back to live at the apartment. Charlene packed her bags and went down to the bus station, but after a couple of hours she returned to the apartment. As she was unpacking her belongings, she could hear appellant talking to Barbara on the phone. Following the phone call, appellant poured himself a drink, sat down at the kitchen table, and began questioning Charlene about Barbara. From the tone of appellant’s questions, Charlene could tell he was upset. Although appellant did not say why he was mad, he indicated Barbara was lying to him about something, and somehow Charlene was to blame for something that had happened. Charlene told appellant she didn’t know what he was talking about, but appellant