People v. Chavez CA3

Filed 6/5/23 P. v. Chavez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096605

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P19CRF0403)

v.

JUAN MANUEL CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Juan Manuel Chavez guilty of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)—count 1)1 and battery causing serious bodily injury. (§ 243, subd. (d)—count 2.) With respect to count 1, the jury also found true an enhancement allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, Jordan R. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant to serve six years in state prison (the middle term of three years on count 1, plus a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement). The trial court also sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years on count 2, but stayed the sentence pursuant to section 654. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)’s new lower term presumption, despite the fact defendant was 25 years old at the time of these crimes. We conclude this contention was forfeited because defendant did not raise this argument in the trial court. Anticipating this conclusion, defendant additionally asserts his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to object to the middle term sentence on the basis of the new presumption or offer additional evidence related to defendant’s youth. As we shall explain, this assertion also fails. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTS On July 27, 2019, Jordan and a friend went to a bar in Cameron Park to meet up with several other friends. They arrived around 9:00 p.m. According to the bar’s owner, Jordan was intoxicated when he arrived and, while at the bar that night, was “flipping people’s hats” and “stealing drinks from people.” At some point, Jordan saw a young woman he knew from high school, Brooke B., who came to the bar with her husband and brother. Jordan and Brooke were not on good terms due to an undisclosed “incident” that occurred between them in high school. Nevertheless, when Jordan saw Brooke at the bar, he walked up to her and asked her to dance. Brooke became angry and responded, “ ‘Get away from me. I don’t want to talk to you.’ ” Brooke’s husband did not see this initial interaction, but was told about it and also became upset. He told Jordan to leave the bar. Jordan did not leave. According to Jordan’s testimony, he spent most of his time at the bar that night with his friends, but had periodic interactions with Brooke and her group, which included defendant and his girlfriend. As Jordan described, “[T]hey would