People v. Blevins CA3

Filed 10/5/15 P. v. Blevins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076384

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62118545)

v.

DANIEL R. B. BLEVINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Daniel R. B. Blevins guilty of two counts of committing a lewd act with a child under 14 by force. Defendant later admitted to having previously served a term in prison and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 11 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of four prior misdemeanor convictions. In support of his contention, defendant relies on Evidence Code section 352.1 We conclude defendant forfeited his claim by failing to raise a timely and specific objection in the trial court.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.

1

On rehearing, defendant claims trial counsel's failure to make a timely and specific section 352 objection rendered counsel ineffective. We disagree and affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with two counts of committing a lewd act with a child under 14 by use of force (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and alleged that defendant previously served a term in prison (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He pleaded not guilty. Prior to trial, the People filed several motions in limine including motions seeking to use defendant’s prior felonies and certain misdemeanors to impeach defendant should he choose to testify. Neither the People’s motions in limine, nor the defendant’s address the four misdemeanor convictions that are now the focus of this appeal. At trial, defendant admitted his prior convictions for receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) and auto theft in 1998 (Veh. Code, § 10851), receiving stolen property in 2002 (Pen. Code, § 496), and felony spousal abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5) in 2011 (his victim was Megan G.). The following exchange then took place between defendant and his counsel: “Q: The first three convictions, did they—had you met [Megan G.] yet at the time that those offenses were committed? “A: No. “Q: And after meeting her, did that cause you to realize that you needed to change your life in some way? “A: Yes, it did. “Q: What was that? “A: Basically I was running amok stealing cars and that was what all the—all three of those offenses were for. After I met her, I mean, it helped me change my life around, it wasn’t the only thing, but it helped me change my life around.”