People v. Meneses

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE DANILO MENESES, Defendant and Appellant.

D081553

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

February 2, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF2100963 Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert F. Somers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance Winters and Charles C Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, A. Natasha Cortina Christine Bergman and Arlyn Escalante, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

O'ROURKE, J.

Following a bench trial, Jesse Danilo Meneses was convicted of assault against peace officers (Pen. Code,^[1] § 245, subd. (c); counts 2, 3, 5, and 6) making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); counts 8, 9), and attempting to deter, prevent, and resist officers from performing their duties (§ 69, subd. (a); counts 11-16).^[2] The court sentenced Meneses to a suspended six-year eight-month prison term, consisting of a four-year midterm on count 2, and one-third the midterms on the other counts: a consecutive 16-month term on count 3, concurrent 16-month terms on counts 5 and 6, a consecutive eight-month term on count 8, a concurrent eight-month term on count 9, a consecutive eight-month term on count 11, and concurrent eight-month terms on counts 12 through 16. The court placed Meneses on probation for 24 months.

Meneses contends insufficient evidence supports his convictions for criminal threats and assault against peace officers, in part because the deputies were assertedly not lawfully performing their duties, his arrest was unlawful, and one officer was not present during his pursuit and apprehension. He further contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence from his assertedly illegal detention and arrest. We reject the contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Events of March 6, 2021

In March 2021, Meneses became angry and aggressive after one of his stepsisters, M.R., removed a copy of a news article about another family member's death that Meneses had posted on a wall of the house in which they all lived. The incident resulted in his other stepsister, K.R., making a 911 call to police. Multiple sheriff's deputies and a sergeant responded to the call. As captured by responding officers' body-worn cameras, M.R., K.R. and Meneses's mother all related that Meneses said he was going to burn the house down. M.R. told officers Meneses also said he would "kill everybody" and "kill the cops [¶] . . . [¶] . . . if they came." She said Meneses "was threatening to burn the house down. He was threatening to kill the cops if they came. He was threatening our family." M.R. told one deputy that K.R. called police and they locked themselves in a room with their dog "because we knew that if he got in, he would probably, I don't know, try to do something." M.R. and K.R.'s brother, S.R., described to officers how he intervened between M.R. and Meneses during the incident. He told a deputy that M.R. was "shaking, crying, and trembling," then "started throwing up" once Meneses had returned to his room after the altercation.

K.R. told an officer "we've all been feeling unsafe" because they had seen Meneses multiple times in the past starting fires outside and letting them burn while he walked away. M.R. also agreed that Meneses had "habits or behaviors of lighting fires" and another family member agreed he engaged in that behavior "[j]ust recently." K.R. said they did not feel safe at the house with him living there. She told officers that "we see him, like, making a spear, and he'll bring it up and he'll look very angry like and so we feel like he's just going to hurt us, um, like in the middle of the night, um, so we're scared." In the past, Meneses had threatened to kill K.R. with a large pocket knife, leading family members to lock K.R. in a bathroom.

After deputies arrived at the scene, some of them attempted to speak with Meneses from the bottom of a stairwell at the entryway. Meneses was at the top of the stairwell on a landing. He was agitated and yelling profanities, holding a tall, sharpened stick. Meneses at one point threatened to slash his own neck and kill himself rather than submit to police. Some of the other family members were in upstairs bedrooms next to the stairway, and the supervising sergeant became concerned for their safety. Another deputy considered the stick a deadly weapon.

When officers finally got upstairs to Meneses, he threw a 40-ounce glass beer bottle at them, missing them, and swung at two officers with his knife. Meneses was ultimately detained and handcuffed. After he was taken away, one of the deputies discovered a cut in his shirt near his abdomen; the knife had cut through to the Kevlar in his body armor vest.

Trial Testimony

At trial, K.R. testified that when she told police what Meneses had said about burning the house down, she was in fear for her safety. But she also testified that she did not personally hear Meneses's threat, she only heard about it through M.R.

M.R. likewise testified at trial that based on Meneses's anger that night, she was worried about her family and her own safety. She admitted that Meneses never specifically threatened her that night. She could not recall exactly what she told police Meneses said, but said she was "probably not" exaggerating. She acknowledged telling police Meneses said he was going to kill family members, but could not remember it at trial.

S.R. testified that he made an audio recording of Meneses's statement about burning the house down. Apparently speaking of M.R., he agreed she was in fear that night. He testified he heard Meneses make his statement that he was going to burn the house down from a baby monitor; he did not actually see Meneses make the statement. S.R. was alone in the room when he heard it, and Meneses was alone at the time he said it. According to S.R., M.R. did not hear Meneses's statement; he was the only one. But he told the other family members about it.

One of the sheriff's deputies who responded that night, Deputy Eric Garcia, testified that when he first walked in the house, he was told Meneses was aggressive, fighting with one family member, and said he was going to light the house on fire. Upon immediately encountering Meneses, he saw him as hostile and carrying a weapon. Deputy Garcia testified that when he was informed that Meneses had threatened to burn the house down and kill family members, he believed Meneses had committed a criminal threat. He interpreted Meneses's statements to officers as telling them if they went upstairs, he would hurt them. Deputy Garcia observed the family members in apparent fear. That circumstance, combined with Meneses's possession of a weapon and his statements to officers, led the deputy to conclude it was not safe to proceed without detaining Meneses.^[3] Because he and other deputies determined the potential for imminent danger, they formulated a plan to enter an upstairs room from the outside so as to detain Meneses quickly and safely.^[4]

DISCUSSION

I. Substantial Evidence Standard of Review

"In the context of a criminal case, the substantial evidence standard stems from the requirement that a criminal conviction necessitates 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime ....'" (People v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 198.) Under this standard, "an appellate court retrospectively inquires whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on all the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. 'Sufficiency review essentially addresses whether "the government's case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury." '" (Id. at p. 199.)" 'Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge [in a court trial] or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.' [Citation.] Ultimately, it is within the [fact-finder's] exclusive province to determine whether an inference that may be drawn from the evidence is, in fact, the only reasonable one, a determination that depends on its resolution of conflicting evidence and weighing the credibility of witnesses....'[F]ounded upon the evidence, the [fact-finder] not only is authorized to make any logical and reasonable deduction, but [it] is the exclusive judge of the weight and value of the inference that may be drawn by it ....'" (Id. at p. 202.)

We view the evidence in light of the whole record, and do not limit our appraisal "to isolated bits of evidence selected by the respondent." (People v. Dominguez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1141, 1153.) We also"' "must judge whether the evidence of each of the essential elements is substantial; it is not enough for the respondent simply to point to 'some' evidence supporting the finding, for '[n]ot every surface conflict of evidence remains substantial in the light of other facts.'" '" (Ibid.) At the same time, we keep in mind that a trier of fact" 'may accept some parts of a witness's testimony and reject other parts.'" (People v. Lopez (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 287, 290, quoting People v. Collins (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 333, 345.)" 'Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to...