People v. White

Filed 10/27/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B259137 (Super. Ct. No. 2014010819) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

HILLARY TRAVON WHITE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Hillary Travon White has a strong arm. He threw a metal showerhead at reinforced glass with sufficient force to shatter the glass, causing particles to hit peace officers on the other side As we shall explain, this conduct may constitute assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury. It is not "open season" for prisoners to throw missles at prison guards, even when they are protected by reinforced glass. Appellant was convicted by jury of two counts of assault on a peace officer 1 with force likely to produce great bodily harm. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c).) He was sentenced to prison for five years four months. He contends that he was not aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery would probably and directly result from his conduct. (People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 782.) We affirm. On December 3, 2013, appellant was incarcerated at a CYA facility and got into a fist fight with another inmate. Appellant refused to stop fighting and was "pepper 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

sprayed" by CYA Correctional Counselor Elmore. Angry, appellant called Elmore a "bitch" because he was the only one "pepper sprayed." Appellant was permitted to wash off in a shower that had a window facing the control desk where Elmore and Parole Agent Zavala were seated. The desk was six feet away from the shower window, which was a multi-paned partition constructed of wire-reinforced glass. Some glass panes were missing. Appellant broke off the metal showerhead and threw it in the direction of the window. Elmore heard a "loud thud and shattering glass." The showerhead bounced back but broke a window pane, spraying glass particles on Elmore and the desk countertop. Elmore felt a sliver of glass hit her eye, alerted her coworkers, and went to the restroom to treat her eye. Appellant moved to within one or two feet from the window, picked up the showerhead, and threw it again. Zavala heard "another loud bang" and felt a shower of glass particles hit her. A piece of glass cut her lip. The showerhead penetrated the window and landed near the desk. Sufficiency of the Evidence Appellant argues that the evidence does not support the finding that he knew that throwing the showerhead would probably and directly result in the application of force to another person. As in every sufficiency of the evidence case, we "consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. . . . The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432.) In order to convict on the charged offenses, the jury had to find that appellant (1) willfully committed an act which by its nature would probably and directly result in injury to another; and (2) was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that a battery would directly, naturally, and probably result from appellant's conduct. (People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779, 788, 790.) Section 245 "is directed