People v. Battey CA2/8

Filed 5/9/16 P. v. Battey CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B266183

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA 131157) v.

ANTHONY LEE BATTEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Pat Connolly, Judge. Affirmed.

G. Martin Velez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

On June 5, 2015, a jury convicted defendant Anthony Lee Battey of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a felony. The jury found true an allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the assault. In a separate proceeding, the trial court found four prior convictions to be true (three of them serious or violent felonies under the “Three Strikes” law). The court struck two of defendant’s prior strike offenses, and sentenced defendant to 27 years in state prison. The facts were these. On December 6, 2013, Krystyna Curtis, who was homeless at the time, was sitting with a group of homeless friends in an area in Torrance, near a church, a pharmacy and a liquor store. They were “just having a sip of a little bit of alcohol, just sitting around, just talking.” Defendant, who was unknown to the group, approached them, seeming “quite agitated.” Ms. Curtis thought he was “another 5150 [referring to someone who has been in a psychiatric ward] being released,” because he was dressed in blue pajamas, a leather jacket and a cap. They invited him to join them. Defendant asked “if there was somebody that could make a run to the liquor store that he could trust with money,” and the group pointed to Ms. Curtis. Defendant told Ms. Curtis he wanted a 40-ouncer of beer, some vodka, and a pack of Camel cigarettes, and gave Ms. Curtis “pretty much the right amount of money, like $15.” Ms. Curtis went to the liquor store and brought the purchases back to defendant. (Ms. Curtis identified photographs of these items at trial.) Defendant “was very kind,” and offered the vodka to everyone, except for a woman named Rhonda. “[H]e was pretty adamant about not letting her have a sip.” The situation “was uncomfortable”; “[t]here was tension between Rhonda and [defendant] and the others, because, you know, we all share together. And [defendant] seemed upset.” Defendant “was talking about wanting to make a phone call,” so, because of the tension, Ms. Curtis thought she would “take him out of the immediate spot where we were . . . .” She walked him to a phone booth across the street from the liquor store. Then defendant pulled out a cell phone, and “was mumbling a bunch of stuff” that she