People v. Park CA1/1

Filed 2/27/24 P. v. Park CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A166515 v. THOMAS HENDRICKS PARK, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-747806-1) Defendant and Appellant.

Upon discovering his girlfriend kissing another man, Thomas Hendricks Park repeatedly punched the man in the face, seriously injuring him. A jury convicted Park of battery with serious bodily injury and found true an allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 243, subd. (d), 667, 1192.7.) The trial court placed him on probation for three years. Park appeals. He contends the trial court erred by permitting a prosecution witness to testify about his motivation for initiating the altercation. He also insists the court erred by imposing a three-year probation term. We reject his first claim but agree with his second. We conclude Park’s probation term must be reduced to two years. As modified, we affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. BACKGROUND The prosecution charged Park with battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) and alleged he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the battery (§§ 667, 1192.7). The prosecution also charged him with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and alleged he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of the assault. It also alleged various aggravating factors. Park’s first trial ended in a mistrial due to juror unavailability. A. Retrial Testimony In July 2021, Megan M. and Park were in a monogamous relationship. They lived together in Petaluma with their roommate, M.F. In mid-July, Megan—who worked for a distillery—and her work acquaintance, Ricardo J.—who worked for a liquor distributor—spent a portion of their workday making sales calls and meeting clients. That evening, they met Park at a bar. Ricardo had spent time with Megan and Park on at least one other occasion; they had a good rapport. After consuming numerous drinks, Megan, Park, and Ricardo went back to Megan and Park’s house. M.F.—who let them in the house—immediately noticed that all three were “very intoxicated,” and that Ricardo seemed disoriented. M.F. returned to her bedroom and went to sleep. Later, M.F. awoke and went into the living room to check on her cat. There, she saw Megan “straddling someone” on a loveseat. M.F. could not see the other person; she assumed it was Park, and that he and Megan were “making out.” M.F. turned away, resumed looking for her cat, and went to the bathroom. When she emerged from the bathroom, she crossed paths with Park, then continued on to her bedroom and got back into bed. Seconds later,