People v. Patterson CA1/2

Filed 6/24/24 P. v. Patterson CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166334 v. MICHAEL RALEIGH PATTERSON, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 04002007185) Defendant and Appellant.

In February 2020 defendant Michael Patterson injured his girlfriend Jane Doe’s friend A.G. when A.G. attempted to intervene in an incident of domestic violence involving Patterson and Doe. Charged with various crimes arising out of this and another incident, Patterson was convicted of them including, as pertinent here, assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, with the jury also finding true the enhancement allegation that the injuries were inflicted “under circumstances involving domestic violence.” Patterson contends that substantial evidence does not support application of the enhancement because he was never in a dating relationship with A.G. We affirm. BACKGROUND On May 12, 2022, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Patterson with 10 counts arising out of two

1

separate incidents that took place on June 12, 2020 (counts 1–5) and February 29, 2020 (counts 6–10): infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant after a prior domestic violence conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1))1 (counts 1 & 6), assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) (counts 2 & 7), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) (counts 3 & 8), contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)) (counts 4, 5, & 10), and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) (count 9). The information further alleged as an enhancement with respect to counts 1, 2, and 7 that Patterson committed those offenses “under circumstances involving domestic violence” within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (e), and also alleged as an enhancement with respect to counts 3 and 8 that Patterson personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of those offenses. At trial Jane Doe and her friend A.G. both testified regarding the February 29 incident. A.G. was staying temporarily at Doe’s home as Doe “was scared to be alone” “[b]ecause of all of the . . . incidents with [Patterson].” At some point that day, Patterson was present in the house and A.G. went to the bedroom to get dressed so she could accompany Doe and Patterson on an errand. While she was in the bedroom, A.G. heard “what sounded like somebody getting hit” and a sound “like a shriek a little bit.” After she heard the noises, A.G. came out of the bedroom and “asked [Patterson] what happened,” and he said “[n]othing.” “[She] looked over at [Doe] and she had a mark underneath her eye” that “was all reddened.” A.G. then “started hitting [Patterson] with a stick,” testifying she “felt like [she] was protecting [Doe].” According to A.G.: “[T]hen a fight broke out between [Patterson] and