People v. Lopez CA3

Filed 2/24/15 P. v. Lopez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C074532

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00536 )

v.

DAVID ELMO LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Elmo Lopez appeals following guilty verdicts by jury for inflicting corporal injury on a former cohabitant (inflicting injury) (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count one);1 knowingly resisting an executive officer by the use of force or violence (resisting) (§ 69; count two); and battery with injury against a peace officer (battery) (§ 243, subd. (c)(2); count three). He contends the trial court erred in failing to

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

stay execution of sentence, pursuant to section 654, on either the resisting or battery counts. Because we conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s implicit finding that the multiple victim exception applied to preclude application of section 654, we shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant and Rosemarie Stillwell were involved in a romantic relationship and had previously lived together. On January 22, 2013, Stillwell was visiting defendant at the house where he was living. The two argued, and as Stillwell tried to leave, defendant pushed her down some stairs, punched her in the head, and dragged her down the rest of the stairs. Stillwell ran to a neighbor’s house and the neighbor called 911. When the police arrived, Stillwell told them defendant had hurt her and where he was (a few doors away). The police went to the identified house to arrest defendant for domestic violence and an outstanding felony warrant. Officers Jeffrey Carr and Daniel Patterson positioned themselves at the front door. Patterson knocked, announced himself as a police officer, and asked to speak to “David.” A male inside the house responded that “David” was not there. Patterson said he had to come in to make sure but the same male voice refused to open the door. Another officer, who could see inside the house, informed Patterson that a man matching defendant’s description was near the door. A woman inside opened the door and backed away. Defendant then yelled at the officers and the woman who opened the door. Patterson directed defendant to come outside with his hands raised, but defendant ignored his commands and continued yelling. Carr drew and armed his Taser, and aimed it at defendant. He instructed defendant to turn around and place his hands behind his head; defendant turned, placed one arm behind his back, and began walking backwards toward the officers. When defendant was within an arm’s reach of Patterson and Carr, Patterson grabbed and held defendant’s left arm from behind his back to handcuff him.