People v. Hicks CA1/5

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Hicks CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166486 v. DANIEL WALTER HICKS, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 21CR000516) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Daniel Walter Hicks (appellant) of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and found true an allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to six years in state prison and ordering him to pay court fees and a restitution fine. Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the term “great bodily injury” is unconstitutionally vague, and that the imposed fees and fines are unconstitutional absent a determination of his ability to pay. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2021, the Napa County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with assault by means of force likely to produce great

1

bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4))1 with a special allegation of personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The information further alleged a prior strike (§ 667, subd. (b)–(i)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). In July 2022, a jury found appellant guilty and found true the special allegation. The trial court found true the prior strike and serious felony allegations but later granted appellant’s motion to dismiss those enhancements. The court sentenced appellant to six years in prison and ordered him to pay a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a $300 suspended restitution fine (§ 1202.45). FACTUAL BACKGROUND On January 19, 2021, both appellant and the victim, Paul D., were patients at Napa State Hospital. At close to 1:00 p.m. that day, Paul D. was seated at a table playing a board game with Nurse Nelly P. in a day room at the hospital. Appellant entered the day room; approached Paul D.; and, without warning, punched Paul D. “at least five times” in the face. Appellant then left the room. A physician testified Paul D. suffered “a significant nasal fracture with trauma.” Months later, because Paul D. “couldn’t breathe” through his nasal passages, he had surgery that involved re-breaking his nose. The treating physician explained that the purpose of the surgery was to change the “nasal shape [to facilitate] breathing.” The physician “elevate[d] [Paul D.’s] skin lining . . . to rearrange or remove some of the broken bone pieces that ha[d] healed incorrectly” and then “sew[ed] it back together.” Afterwards, Paul D.’s