People v. Hudson CA2/8

Filed 7/7/15 P. v. Hudson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B257539

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA128817) v.

TREVIS HUDSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed.

Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Kimberly J. Baker-Guillemet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________

Defendant Trevis Hudson appeals from the judgment of conviction for burglary. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish the intent element of burglary, in that he did not intend to assault the victim with a deadly weapon when he entered her apartment. We conclude the evidence is sufficient and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant began dating C.H. while they were both working for Delta Airlines. During their relationship, defendant helped C.H. find and pay for an apartment. Defendant also purchased two televisions for C.H. to put in this apartment. On the morning of June 20, 2013, C.H. had a phone conversation with defendant in which she told him she “needed space.” Defendant asked her to return the TVs, but C.H. refused because she believed they were a gift. Defendant continued to send C.H. text messages throughout the day, in which he told her he would come to her apartment later that day. C.H. grew uneasy due to the text messages and an incident that day at work where she saw defendant near her work area after she told him to stay away. C.H. alerted her supervisors to the situation, and one of the supervisors followed her home. That evening, defendant came to C.H.’s apartment with two sheriff’s deputies, intending to retrieve the TVs. C.H. told the deputies that she did not have any property belonging to defendant, and the deputies told defendant he would have to go through civil court to obtain the TVs. Defendant continued to text C.H. that night. Defendant sent a text saying, “I have nothing else to lose. Smart move.” C.H. felt that defendant was threatening her with “more consequences.” She asked, “Is that a threat?” Defendant did not respond. Around 11:45 p.m., defendant returned to C.H.’s apartment building, grabbed a hammer from the backseat of his car, and climbed up to C.H.’s balcony. He used the hammer to break the lock on her window and kicked through the glass. Once inside the apartment, defendant went into C.H.’s bedroom, where C.H. was talking on the phone to