People v. Quarles

Filed 7/26/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A152282 v. JEFFREY LYNN QUARLES, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR698799) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Jeffrey Lynn Quarles appeals from a judgment of damaging a telephone line or mechanical equipment connected to the line (Pen. Code, § 591),1 misdemeanor battery on an elder (§ 243.25), and the lesser included offense of misdemeanor elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (c)). The convictions arise out of an altercation with his elderly parents. On appeal, defendant challenges only his section 591 conviction. Specifically, he maintains section 591 is a specific intent crime and, thus, the trial court erred in refusing to give a voluntary intoxication instruction. We affirm. BACKGROUND At the time of the incident in question, defendant’s parents were entertaining a guest for dinner. While defendant and his father were in the kitchen, his father observed him “acting differently.” Confronting defendant about his behavior, his father accused him of drinking.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant became “belligerent and aggressive” and approached his father, coming within six inches of his father’s face with his fists clenched. As his father pushed defendant’s hands away, defendant responded with a swing. His father attempted to restrain defendant, and their quarrel turned into a “wrestling match.” Defendant punched, kicked, and threw his father into a glass door. On hearing the commotion, defendant’s mother came into the kitchen. Seeing her husband “struggling,” she picked up the telephone and called 911. Defendant pushed his mother into a table, yanked the phone from her hand, and threw it down the hallway, ejecting the batteries and disconnecting the call. Defendant was arrested and charged with elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)–count 1), damaging a telephone line or mechanical equipment connected to the line (§ 591– count 2), misdemeanor elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (c)–count 3), and misdemeanor battery on an elder (§ 243.25–count 4). At the outset of trial, defendant’s counsel stated she anticipated asking for a voluntary intoxication instruction as to count 2. The prosecution maintained damaging a telephone line or the connected phone is a general intent crime and therefore a voluntary intoxication instruction is unnecessary and inappropriate. Defendant’s counsel asked a second time for a voluntary intoxication instruction just prior to the court instructing the jury. Citing People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 82–83, 84 (Atkins), the court refused to give the instruction. The jury convicted defendant of damaging a telephone line, misdemeanor battery on an elder and the lesser included offense of misdemeanor elder abuse. The trial court sentenced him to one year in jail, with release pending space available in a treatment program, plus three years’ formal probation. DISCUSSION We review a trial court’s refusal to give a requested instruction de novo. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733; see People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889, 893 (Moore).)