People v. Preston CA3

Filed 11/18/21 P. v. Preston CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091287

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF173393)

v.

GREGORY THOMAS PRESTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Gregory Thomas Preston guilty of several crimes related to an incident of domestic violence. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Defendant and A.V. began dating in July 2012; they moved in together in December 2012. By 2013, despite frequent arguments, they were talking about marriage. Then, in May 2014, an argument that began as verbal insults escalated to physical abuse. Defendant head-butted A.V., leaving a “gash” above her eye, and punched her repeatedly in the face. Defendant took A.V. to the hospital and left her there; he threatened to break her jaw unless she told hospital personnel she fell in the shower. A.V. was afraid of defendant so she complied. The day after being beaten by defendant, a coworker noticed A.V.’s injuries. A.V. told her what happened and the coworker encouraged A.V. to file a police report, which A.V. did. Photos were taken of the injuries A.V. sustained when defendant punched her in the face. The photos show stitches above her left eyebrow and a black eye, as well as marks above her lip. Following the physical abuse, A.V. ended her relationship with defendant. Two years later, A.V. reached out to defendant on social media; she wanted “closure,” maybe an “apology.” After several weeks of contact over social media and eventually in person, defendant and A.V. resumed a sexual relationship. At first, the relationship was “passionate and lovey-dovey again,” but soon the arguing resumed. By February 2017, A.V. and defendant’s relationship had become “[v]ery volatile, aggressive[,] and toxic.” One day, A.V. picked defendant up at the train station and, as she drove from the station, they began to argue. The argument escalated and defendant began choking A.V. while she was driving. Panicked, A.V. “slammed on the brakes” and pulled off the freeway. After she was able to calm down, A.V. continued to drive them to Lake Tahoe where the two spent the weekend together. A.V. did not report the incident to the police.