People v. Collins CA3

Filed 3/29/22 P. v. Collins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093566

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF02015)

v.

LOVALLE DAMON COLLINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Lovalle Damon Collins and his girlfriend were visiting a resident at a senior living apartment complex in Oroville. At some point, their continued presence was no longer welcome and the onsite manager, G., asked them to leave. As G. escorted them off the property, in an admittedly annoying manner, defendant punched him once in the face, causing serious injuries to his jaw.

1

Defendant was convicted by jury of one count of battery causing serious bodily injury. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found defendant was previously convicted of a strike offense within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12)1 which also triggered the five-year prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Following a successful motion to strike defendant’s prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, the trial court sentenced him to serve seven years in state prison. On appeal, defendant asserts two claims of instructional error. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his constitutional right to present a defense by omitting a bracketed portion of CALCRIM No. 3470 that would have defined “unlawful touching” in connection with his self-defense claim, and also omitting a bracketed portion of CALCRIM No. 917 that would have informed the jury that it may consider whether G. “spoke or acted in a way that threatened [defendant] with immediate harm or an unlawful touching.” Because defense counsel did not object to the latter omission, defendant argues in the alternative that counsel’s failure in this regard amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, defendant asserts the cumulative prejudice flowing from these instructional errors requires reversal. We need not decide the merits of these instructional error claims. Assuming, without deciding, that the trial court should have instructed the jury in the manner asserted in this appeal, we conclude defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense. Moreover, viewing the assumed errors cumulatively, there is no reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result had the jury been so instructed. We therefore affirm the judgment.