People v. Cornejo

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NELSON CORNEJO, Defendant and Appellant.

B329213

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

August 20, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA506931, Richard S. Kemalyan, Judge.

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Lauren N. Guber, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

STONE J.

Nelson Cornejo and Crystal R. were in a dating relationship and had a child together. One night in July 2022, Cornejo slashed Crystal's face with a sharp object, giving her a large cut on her cheek. A jury convicted Cornejo of mayhem (Pen Code,^[1] § 203; count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 3). On appeal, Cornejo contends there is insufficient evidence to support his mayhem conviction. He also contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the mayhem charge under section 1118.1. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Relevant Prosecution Evidence

On July 2, 2022, Crystal was living at the L.A. Grand Hotel. Video surveillance footage showed that around 1:30 a.m., Crystal was sitting on a chair in front of the hotel smoking a cigarette. Minutes later, a person wearing a grey hooded top and dark colored pants approached Crystal. Crystal looked directly at and extended her left arm towards the person. At that moment, the person cut Crystal's face with an unknown object and then ran away. Crystal went inside the hotel and told the security desk what happened.

Immediately after, John Gillett, a program manager at the hotel, received a radio call about the incident. He then spoke to Crystal and called 911. During the 911 call, Gillett was standing next to Crystal and both of their voices can be heard on the call.

Gillett told the 911 operator that Crystal's "baby's dad" was the person who attacked her. Crystal identified Cornejo as her attacker and said that he had done something like that to her before.

Shortly after, Los Angeles Police Officer Bradley Goetting arrived at the hotel and met with Crystal. Crystal "had a severe laceration to the left side of her face." She told Goetting that Cornejo, "the father of her child," cut her face. That night, officers searched for Cornejo and the weapon used to cut Crystal, but they found neither.

Paramedics treated Crystal's face at the hotel and then transported her to the hospital. At the hospital, Crystal met with a surgeon and received "reconstructive surgery" on her face, including stitches.

Days later, several Los Angeles Police Department officers went to the hotel after receiving a radio call that the suspect of the July 2, 2022 attack had returned. Officer Gilbert Rodiles spoke to Crystal about the attack. Crystal said she was outside the hotel having a cigarette when Cornejo approached and asked her for a cigarette. As Crystal turned to hand Cornejo a cigarette, Cornejo cut her face with what appeared to be a piece of glass.

Officer Eric Orozco searched for Cornejo and found him a block from the hotel. After a short pursuit, Orozco detained Cornejo. Crystal identified Cornejo at the scene of the arrest as the person who cut her on July 2, 2022.^[2] At trial, the People showed Crystal photographs of herself that were taken while Crystal was at the hospital. The photographs were close-up images of the left side of Crystal's face. Crystal testified that the photographs accurately depicted her injury from the attack: they showed her "face was slashed" from the area near her nose to "all the way back to [her] scalp."

The People also showed Crystal another close-up photograph of the left side of her face that was taken some time after the incident. The photograph showed a thick scar on her face that starts at the middle of her cheek and extends behind her left ear. Crystal testified that the "injury" in the photograph is the same one that she had at trial.

Dr. Angela Zhu treated the cut on Crystal's face at LAC+USC Medical Center. The cut was a "large" 11-centimeter laceration which began under her left eye. It extended behind her ear and into the scalp. The cut went through the skin and "a little bit of the subcutaneous tissue," but did not reach the fat underneath. Zhu opined that a sharp object caused the cut.

To treat the cut, Zhu cleaned it and repaired it with stitches. Zhu then instructed Crystal to come back to the hospital for a follow-up appointment. Zhu also instructed Crystal to put an antibiotic ointment over it and keep it moisturized. Crystal did not come back for a follow-up appointment.

Zhu looked at the photograph of Crystal's face taken some time after the incident. Zhu acknowledged that the photograph showed a scar on Crystal's face. When asked whether the scar would be permanent, Zhu stated, "[It] depends on the type of care that she gives, but given that its location - on a sun-exposed part of her face, it would likely remain visible for some amount of time, at least a degree, to the naked eye." As to how long the scar would remain visible, Zhu stated, "Generally these types of injuries take several years to lessen in appearance. Again, it depends on the type of care that she does for it. But because of the size, it will - it may be noticeable for at least several years unless camouflaged [by makeup]." Zhu repeated that she "would expect that a scar of this size would still be apparent for at least a few years to several years afterwards."

II. Defense Evidence

Cornejo did not testify or call any witnesses. The defense introduced into evidence records from the hospital that treated Crystal after the incident, showing Crystal told medical personnel that "a stranger" cut her.

III. Section 1118.1 Motion, Verdict, and Sentencing

At the close of the People's case-in-chief, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal on the mayhem charge under section 1118.1. The defense argued there was no evidence that Crystal's injury was permanent. The trial court denied the motion.

The jury convicted Cornejo on all counts. After a bifurcated trial, the jury found several aggravating circumstances true. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(1)-(2), (b)(1)-(3), (b)(5).) Then, in a bench trial, the court found true Cornejo's prior strike conviction for attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664).

The trial court sentenced Cornejo on count 1 to 16 years in prison, consisting of the upper term of eight years, doubled under the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)). The court imposed consecutive one-year sentences on each of counts 2 and 3 (one-third the middle term for each offense) but stayed these sentences under section 654.

DISCUSSION

I. There Is Sufficient Evidence To Support the Mayhem Conviction

Cornejo contends the evidence is insufficient to support his mayhem conviction. Specifically, he argues there is no substantial evidence that Crystal's disfiguring injury is permanent. We disagree.

A. Relevant legal standards

"In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] 'The record must disclose substantial evidence to support the verdict-i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence .... [W]e may not reverse for insufficient evidence unless it appears' "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." '" (People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1157-1158, superseded in part by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Villegas (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 253, 281, fn. 9, review granted Jan. 31, 2024, S283126, review dism. May 15, 2024.) "The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable." (People v. Romero (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 381, 386 (Romero).)

"Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem." (§ 203.) "Disfigurement of the body' "impairs or injures the beauty, symmetry or appearance of a person or thing . . . [or] renders unsightly, misshapen or imperfect or deforms in some manner." '" (Romero, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 387.) A person's head qualifies as a member of the body. (People v. Newble (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 444, 449 (Newble).)

The modern rationale behind the offense of mayhem is"' "the preservation of the natural completeness and normal appearance of the human face and body." '" (People v. Santana (2013) 56 Cal.4th 999, 1004 (Santana).) "In other words, section 203 'protects the integrity of the victim's person.'" (Ibid.) "Section 203 pays particular attention to the face, recognizing the particular pain and emotional scarring that results from disfiguring a person's face." (People v. Johnson (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 267, 281 (Johnson).)

"To prove mayhem based on a disfiguring injury, the injury must be...