People v. Chavez CA1/3

Filed 2/29/16 P. v. Chavez CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141830 v. LEVIT CHAVEZ, JR., (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN214815) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Levit Chavez, Jr. was convicted by a jury of second degree murder of his father, Levit Chavez, Sr. (Chavez, Sr.), and first degree attempted murder of his father’s girlfriend, Nelsey Flores (Nelsey).1 (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) He was found to have used a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1) & (3)), and to have inflicted great bodily injury on Nelsey (Pen. Code, § 12207, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. The defense claimed that Nelsey murdered Chavez, Sr., and that defendant stabbed Nelsey in self-defense. In support of that claim, defendant called numerous witnesses who testified that Nelsey was physically violent, volatile, and extremely jealous of Chavez, Sr. who was having an affair. Over defense objection, the court allowed the prosecution to elicit testimony from one of those witnesses that defendant was also capable of violence. Defendant argues that this evidentiary ruling was error that requires that his convictions be reversed.

1 For clarity, we will sometimes use first names to refer to people who have the same last name as others involved in the case. No disrespect is intended.

1

We disagree. The testimony defendant highlights was properly admitted under Evidence Code section 1103, which allows introduction of a defendant’s propensity for violence when he or she claims to have acted in self-defense. Moreover, the evidence was minimally significant to the prosecution’s case. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In May 2009, eight-year-old Rudolpho Chavez (Rudy) lived with his mother Nelsey and his father Chavez, Sr. above an apartment occupied by Irma Castanon. Jose Zecena lived in a backyard apartment at the residence, and defendant spent the night of May 23 in a mobile home across the street. Castanon testified that on the morning of May 24, Rudy knocked on her door, crying and shaking, and said that “his brother was stabbing his mother.” Zecena testified that he saw two men fighting in the backyard that morning, and saw Chavez, Sr. drag himself to the wall of Zecena’s apartment. Rudy came out of Castanon’s apartment, and Zecena and his wife brought Rudy to their apartment. Rudy told them defendant “killed my daddy.” Chavez, Sr. bled to death from multiple stab wounds. Nelsey sustained multiple stab wounds, almost died, and had to undergo a splenectomy. Rudy testified that he heard defendant and Chavez, Sr. argue that morning. After the argument, defendant came in and went to the bathroom. Nelsey was cooking in the kitchen. From his bedroom, Rudy saw defendant leave the bathroom and approach Nelsey. Nelsey screamed and ran into Rudy’s room while defendant tried to stab her. She tried to close the door to the room but defendant pushed it open and pushed her onto a chair. She was bleeding. Rudy ran to the downstairs neighbors and told them to call the police. Nelsey testified that she was in the kitchen that morning, and defendant and Chavez, Sr. were in the backyard. Defendant came inside and went to the bathroom. When he came out of the bathroom, he grabbed her from behind, and stabbed her repeatedly. Nelsey said the attack was completely unprovoked. “It was like he had the devil in him.” Nelsey told police that defendant had asked Chavez, Sr. for money, but