People v. Bynum CA2/6

Filed 12/19/22 P. v. Bynum CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B317074 (Super. Ct. No. 19F-04604) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

KEJUAN GUY BYNUM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Kejuan Guy Bynum appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189.)1 The jury found true an allegation that he had personally used a deadly weapon – a knife. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) He admitted one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior “strike” within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court sentenced him to prison for 15 years to life for second degree murder, doubled to 30

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

years to life because of the prior strike, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction, plus one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. Appellant’s aggregate sentence was 36 years to life. Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a mistrial. The ground for the motion was that a law enforcement witness had commented on appellant’s invocation of his right to remain silent. Appellant also contends that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter. We modify the judgment to award appellant credit for one additional day of presentence custody. In all other respects, we affirm. Facts During the afternoon on June 1, 2019, Amanda P. was inside a residence. She saw the victim, Christopher Wilson, and greeted him. Wilson hugged Amanda. She had previously had sex with him, but they had not had a romantic relationship. They were old “friends.” Amanda walked into the bedroom. Wilson “came up behind [her] and just playfully threw [her] on[to] the bed.” Appellant, who was also in the bedroom, “got so angry all of a sudden.” He “walk[ed] up” to Wilson and said, “‘Let’s go outside.’” Wilson said, “‘I’m not fighting over no girl.’” About two months before the incident in the bedroom, appellant and Amanda had a sexual encounter. Amanda regretted it and told appellant that she was not interested in him. But “he wouldn't go away.” Amanda believed that appellant had become “obsessed” with her.