People v. Campbell CA2/8

Filed 6/23/16 P. v. Campbell CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B266272

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA094256) v.

ROBERT DAVID CAMPBELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Darrell Mavis, Judge. Affirmed.

Joseph R. Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant Robert David Campbell was charged by information with one count of inflicting corporal injury corporal injury to a child (Pen. Code, § 273d, subd. (a)), with a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Defendant was convicted by jury, and the special allegation was found true. Defendant was sentenced to the midterm of four years, and a consecutive three years for the enhancement. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed appellate counsel to represent defendant. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. Defendant filed a supplemental brief with this court arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel: (1) “gave evidence to the D.A. early that he was planning to use to impeach witness ‘Sarah [L.]’ ”; (2) did not object when the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by showing the witness the impeachment evidence in advance of her testimony; (3) did not object when a police officer testified as an expert concerning drug and alcohol use, and testified that various witnesses did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and (4) did not seek a mistrial following an outburst by a member of the audience in the presence of the jury. Finding no arguable appellate issues, we affirm defendant’s judgment of conviction. BACKGROUND On August 4, 2014, Hunter M. was 16 years old. That day, he was socializing with friends at his house. One of his friends, Sarah L., missed her ex-boyfriend, Richard. She and Hunter decided to drive to Richard’s house in Alhambra so Sarah could talk to Richard. Hunter and Richard had never met before. When they arrived at Richard’s house, Sarah was nervous, so Hunter knocked on the front door while Sarah waited in the car. When Richard answered the door, Hunter told him that Sarah wanted to talk to him. Hunter walked towards his car, and Richard followed behind him. However, before reaching Hunter’s car, Richard said “F’ this,” and walked back inside the house. Hunter was a “little confused” and continued walking to his car, which was parked on the street. When Hunter reached the sidewalk, Richard’s father, defendant, came out of the house and said “Hey . . . what are you doing here?” Hunter told defendant he was there