People v. Mauries CA2/8

Filed 12/9/15 P. v. Mauries CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B259658

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA132220) v.

DAVID MAURIES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed.

Jerome J. Haig, 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 Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant David Mauries was convicted of one count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant. The jury also found true the special allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, his girlfriend. Defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in admitting, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1109, evidence that he engaged in a prior act of domestic violence against his former wife. We conclude the trial acted within its broad discretion to admit the prior conduct evidence, and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by information with one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) It was further alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and that he had suffered a prior conviction for a serious felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law for which he served a prior prison term (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations. The charges arose from an incident that occurred on October 6, 2013. The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, revealed the following. Sometime in early 2012, defendant and Rhiannon S.1 started dating. They dated for about a year and a half, and during that time, defendant would “on and off” live at her apartment in Downey. By October 2013, she and defendant had “broken up” but were talking about getting back together and were going out like they were “still together.” Defendant still kept some of his things in her apartment. Rhiannon conceded one of the reasons they often broke up was that defendant wanted her to stop drinking so much. On the morning of October 6, 2013, defendant and Rhiannon had been spending a nice weekend together without fighting. Defendant had stayed over on Saturday night and they left the apartment on Sunday morning to go to a softball game. Defendant was