People v. Konovalov CA5

Filed 6/18/21 P. v. Konovalov CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F078999 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR057943) v.

GEORGE MORRIS KONOVALOV, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Appellant George Morris Konovalov appeals following his convictions of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240)1 and three counts of felony attempting to make criminal threats (§ 422). Appellant contends his convictions must be reversed under an ineffective assistance of counsel theory because his trial counsel failed to object when the People introduced evidence of his prior instances of misconduct. Should his conviction not be reversed, appellant argues the trial court improperly imposed a probation condition restricting his right to travel outside of California and, in supplemental briefing, that the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950) means his term of probation must be reduced to no more than two years. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm appellant’s conviction and the travel probation condition but remand so that appellant’s probation can be conformed to the requirements of Assembly Bill 1950. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant and his four siblings were beneficiaries of their father’s trust, valued at around $845,000. In planning for the settlement of the trust assets, the siblings met to discuss various properties involved. Appellant’s brother travelled from Oregon for the discussions. A heated discussion ensued, which resulted in physical violence and threats. Appellant allegedly choked his brother to the point of unconsciousness and threatened to kill his siblings, all over their desire to sell one of the properties utilized by appellant. Portions of the dispute were audio recorded and played for the jury. The jury ultimately found appellant not guilty of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury against his brother, assault and battery against one sister, and making criminal threats against three siblings. However, the jury convicted appellant of felony attempting to make criminal threats against three siblings, and misdemeanor assault against his brother.