People v. Guy CA3

Filed 6/14/22 P. v. Guy CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ---- THE PEOPLE, C094313

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MANCRFE20210000055) v.

DOUGLAS JAMES GUY,

Defendant and Appellant.

F.1 testified at trial that she and her husband M. had rented their residential property multiple times over the course of 30 years to defendant Douglas James Guy and his mother, most recently for a few months starting in 2016. During the most recent tenancy, F. and M. received complaints about defendant from the neighbors which caused them to evict defendant and his mother in May 2017. On the day of the eviction, defendant and his mother showed up unannounced at F.’s rental property, even though police had said they needed to make an appointment to retrieve their belongings. Defendant started yelling at F., so she called the police. Defendant grew so mad that he jumped over the gate, threatened to kill F. if she touched his belongings, pushed her, and tried to grab her phone. Defendant and his mother then left.

1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90, governing “Privacy in opinions,” we refer to the victims with the initial of their first names only.

1

In October 2020, defendant called F. and left a voice message calling her names, saying she was “begging for it” and was “gonna burn in hell.” A recording of the message was played for the jury. One afternoon in December 2020, defendant called F. and asked “Who wants to die?” “Who in your family [wants to] die? You want to die? You want to die?” When F. asked defendant what he was talking about, defendant responded, “Is your daughter going to die? Is your daughter going to die? Does she want to die?” A recording of the call was played for the jury. Scared and upset, F. called the police. An officer arrived within 30 minutes. F. then realized that a friend’s car parked in her backyard was on fire, so she called 911 again. M. and a neighbor both testified they saw defendant running away from the scene. Defendant was charged with arson and felony making criminal threats. In April 2021, a jury found defendant guilty of making criminal threats. During the June 2021 sentencing hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to reduce the criminal threats conviction to a misdemeanor. The court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered two years of probation with one year in jail. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine, a corresponding $300 probation revocation fine (suspended unless probation is revoked), a $40 court operations fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee, and a $30 penalty surcharge. Defendant’s conditions of probation list two charges against defendant, and state that the court operations fee imposed was “$40” and “$80”, and the conviction assessment fee was “$30” and “$60.” Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right