People v. Knight CA1/1

Filed 4/28/22 P. v. Knight CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161725 v. RICHARD CHARLES KNIGHT, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC212302A) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This case arose out of what the trial court termed “a scuffle” between defendant and a neighboring resident who thought defendant was going to break into his vehicle. The court, sitting as the trier of fact, found the neighbor reasonably restrained defendant by grabbing his sweatshirt while calling the police. The court further found defendant’s efforts to escape from the neighbor were unreasonable, particularly when defendant drew and used a knife to slice the neighbor’s arm. The court therefore rejected defendant’s claim of self-defense, finding defendant “profoundly lack[ed] credibility” and convicted him of one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245,

We resolve this case by Memorandum Opinion pursuant to California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

subd. (a)(1))2 accompanied by infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The probation department recommended, and the prosecution urged, that defendant be sentenced to state prison, although the prosecutor stated she would not be opposed to a grant of probation accompanied by a year of jail time, given that this was defendant’s first felony conviction. Defendant urged the court to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor or, at a minimum to impose probation, given defendant’s severe drug addiction, which counsel acknowledged defendant “ha[d] not been able to manage.” Counsel also agreed with probation “that [defendant’s] home environment is not suitable” because his brother’s drug addiction “is raging out of control.” Counsel observed that “treatment of some kind has got to be residential and long- term.” The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and, finding unusual circumstances—“[n]amely, [defendant] was suffering from long-term drug addiction at the time of the crime”—placed defendant on four year’s probation under numerous terms and conditions, including that he serve 180 days in the county jail. The court also allowed for defendant to apply for “parole,” for example to a residential treatment facility, to shorten the jail time. The court additionally imposed “terms and conditions that would address treatment; alcohol, drug, substance abuse treatment, and the other issues that are outlined in the Probation’s report.” The court specifically ordered: “You are ordered to participate in treatment, therapy, and counseling, including residential treatment, as appropriate at the direction of Probation. You’re ordered not to use, consume, possess, or transport any non-