People v. Anthony Yu

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY YU, Defendant and Appellant.

C096075

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer

February 2, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. No. 62-166376)

ROBIE Acting P. J.

Defendant Anthony Yu was found guilty of 15 counts of physically and sexually abusing his two children, six counts of dissuading them from reporting the abuse or assisting in its prosecution, and two counts of violating a court order not to contact them. He argues his convictions on all counts must be reversed because: (1) his right to represent himself during the pretrial period was violated because he was denied adequate resources to prepare his defense; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his midtrial motion to discharge his retained counsel and represent himself again and (3) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from two prior girlfriends, one of whom is the mother of the two children about other acts of physical and sexual abuse. We disagree.

Defendant also argues his conviction on two counts of dissuading a witness must be reversed because of insufficient evidence, and the matter must be remanded to the trial court to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 654 to stay the sentence on either the attempted torture conviction or four other convictions that make up the conduct constituting his attempted torture conviction. We agree. We thus affirm the judgment on all but two counts and remand for resentencing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Except for two counts of dissuading a witness, defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support any of his other 21 convictions, and we thus do not discuss the evidence underlying those convictions in detail. Instead, we summarize only the evidence that is relevant to the arguments defendant makes on appeal.

Defendant has two children with his former girlfriend T.W.-a daughter born in 2004 and a son born in 2006. In approximately 2007 defendant became the sole parent of the children after their mother left. In 2008, defendant and the children moved into the home of defendant's parents in Rancho Cordova. They lived there for about eight years. Two of the counts for lewd acts on a child occurred while defendant lived with his children at his parents' house.

Defendant and the children shared a bedroom the entire time they lived with his parents. All three initially slept in the same bed. At some point, the children's grandparents bought them a bunk bed. Defendant's son testified his grandparents wanted to put the bunk bed in a separate bedroom, but defendant insisted it be put in his bedroom. Defendant's daughter testified that, after the bunk beds were purchased, she still slept in defendant's bed "[e]very once in a while." She also testified when she was between seven and 11 years old defendant touched her breasts and she "felt it was inappropriate, especially because [she] was growing" and she "didn't feel comfortable with it whatsoever." She testified that, once a month while living at her grandparents' house, defendant would touch her breasts under her clothes and her butt over her clothes. Defendant's son remembered that, also during this time, defendant dragged him out of bed by his hair and slammed him on the ground. Defendant's daughter said that, while living with her grandparents, defendant hit her and her brother "upside the head," and she remembered one incident where he threw her brother across the room.

In January 2016, defendant and the children moved out of his parents' house. Defendant's daughter testified the physical abuse "got worse when [they] moved out to [their] own home. There was no supervision [there] or there was [sic] no grandparents to tell him no," and "[they] would be hit harder or for longer periods of time." About six months after moving, the children were removed from the home after a neighbor saw bruises on defendant's daughter's arms and she told the neighbor defendant hit her and her brother. The children were placed in foster care for several months and then lived with their grandparents until they were returned to defendant in March of 2017. The events that triggered the removal are not directly at issue in this case, however one count of lewd acts with a child occurred during the first six months after the family moved. Defendant's daughter testified that defendant continued to touch her in the same way he had when living at her grandparents' house-on her breasts and her butt. She also described an incident where she was sitting next to defendant and "he put his hand between [her] legs and rested it between [her] thighs, and [she] tried to scoot away because it . . . was too close for how [she] felt comfortable, and he asked [her] why [she] had scooted away." She clarified defendant touched her on the "vagina," over her clothes. She did not feel she could say no because they were not allowed to say no.

All of the allegations of physical abuse and the two remaining allegations of sexual abuse occurred after the children were returned to defendant in March of 2017. The children were physically and socially isolated. They were homeschooled and had no direct contact with other kids in the homeschool program. They had no extracurricular activities. They were not allowed to go outside except for to complete household tasks, such as taking out the trash or going to the grocery store. Defendant's daughter testified, "I was not allowed to have friends." Defendant's son testified they had "no school life," "no social life," and had to spend many days just "sitting in [their] chairs doing work" for "eight to fourteen hours."^[1]

Defendant was controlling. He made his son do "guard duty" as often as two or three times a week, which involved standing outside defendant's bedroom at night "to protect the family and to learn how to stay focused." If defendant's son fell asleep, defendant would get angry and kick or slap him to wake him up. The children had to call defendant "daddy." "[They] couldn't call him dad, father, [and] definitely not Anthony. He would be really, really mad if [they] did." They had to repeatedly apologize if they did something wrong, and say, "Yes, Daddy. I'm sorry, Daddy," a specified number of times (sometimes into the thousands) and start over if they made a mistake. They were not allowed to eat until defendant ate or he gave them permission to eat. Sometimes they were not allowed to sleep in their own bedrooms and had to sleep on the floor in defendant's bedroom. Defendant's daughter testified defendant once threatened to ground her if she did not sleep in his bedroom. Defendant would sometimes "lock" the children in his closet by threatening them if they left. Defendant's daughter said she "felt" locked in because she "believed that, if [they] were to get out of the closet, [they] would be punished."

The physical abuse escalated. Defendant's son testified that one time defendant got mad at him for watching YouTube videos without permission and "he threw [his son's] desk at [him]." Another time he was playing with LEGOs without permission and defendant "kicked [him] in the face," which caused his eye to swell shut for a week. Both children described an incident where defendant kicked his daughter in the face while she was wearing an orthodontic mask. Both children described being hit by defendant with his fists, a belt, and a broom, and being stomped in the head. The beatings would happen as often as "two or three times a week." Defendant's son testified it seemed like defendant "enjoyed" abusing them and "got a feeling of power" and "a feeling of control" from it. Defendant's daughter testified defendant would not allow their grandparents to visit when they had visible injuries.

Defendant's daughter testified defendant continued to touch her body in ways that made her uncomfortable. Defendant would make both children turn around and he would "kick [them] . . . in the backside." Although he treated it as a joke, defendant's daughter "didn't feel comfortable with that." She testified defendant continued to touch her butt "once or twice a month or once a month," and would say things like, "I'm the only one allowed to touch your butt." She testified defendant would ask her "to spread [her] legs" and he would kick her "in between [her] legs, not hard, but it was definitely uncomfortable." Defendant appeared to treat it as a joke, but she "felt violated. It wasn't something [she] was very comfortable with, whether it was a joke or not." When asked if it seemed "like a sexual sort of thing," she responded, "In a way, yes, it did." She also testified she would sometimes sit on defendant's lap and he would get "too close to private areas and . . . [she] didn't feel comfortable sitting with him anymore." By private areas, she explained she meant her vagina. She testified she would sit on defendant's lap once or twice a week, and "almost every time" he would "touch or come too close to [her] private parts." She said this made her feel "uncomfortable. [She] didn't feel like [the house] was a safe place for [her] anymore. [She] used to love sitting with [her] father and being able to have a relationship with him and just bond as a family, but eventually over time, it just felt very uncomfortable and wrong in [her] head." She did not feel she could tell defendant no because "that would be one of the reasons why [they] would be grounded again or hurt."^[2]

In early February, what might be described as the beginning of the end was triggered by what the prosecutor referred to as the Wattpad incident. The children had created accounts on social media platforms without defendant's knowledge or permission, including a story sharing site called...