People v. Boulware CA3

Filed 3/3/15 P. v. Boulware CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C075063

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F07238)

v.

ADRIENNE MARQUIS BOULWARE,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Adrienne Marquis Boulware of torture and second degree murder, acquitting her of first degree murder. Sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison, defendant appeals, contending the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing and rebuttal arguments to the jury. Recognizing defense counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s statements thereby forfeiting her claim of

1

prosecutorial misconduct, she contends, in the alternative, counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.1 FACTS On September 14, 2011, the body of Audie Hogue was discovered in the parking lot of an abandoned car wash on Marysville Boulevard. He had been beaten to death. He had blunt force injuries to his head, neck, and torso and sustained internal injuries including multiple rib fractures, a pancreas almost split in two, and lacerations to his small intestines. His blood-alcohol content was 0.30 percent. A mini mart’s surveillance videotape from the night before showed defendant and Dawson going back and forth between the mini mart and the car wash several times, purchasing beverages during each visit to the mini mart. The videotape also showed Hogue, who had been panhandling earlier in the day in the mini mart’s parking lot, staggering and barely able to get up off the curb, waving to someone across the street and then walking across the street to the car wash just after defendant and Dawson were seen walking towards the car wash. Hogue was never to be seen again on the videotape. Sometime between 8:30 and 9:30 a.m. the next day, the videotape showed defendant and Dawson at the mini mart, watching the officers investigate the crime scene at the car wash. The jury heard tapes of a police interview with defendant, a pretext call defendant made to Dawson, and a secretly recorded conversation at the jail between defendant and Dawson and thereafter with police officers. Initially, defendant told officers she was not in the area but identified Dawson as beating Hogue. She then changed her story and denied responsibility, claiming she left with her friend Tennessee when Dawson started