People v. Thomas

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELINDA KAY THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant.

E079946

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

June 10, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No FVI17002966 Debra Harris, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffrey Manning-Cartwright and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

OPINION

FIELDS, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2018, defendant and appellant Melinda Kay Thomas was convicted of one count of attempted criminal threats (Pen. Code,^[1] §§ 644, 422, subd. (a); count 1); two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 2, 3) and one count of possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 4). In 2022, defendant petitioned to vacate her convictions pursuant to newly enacted section 236.15, which generally permits the trial court to vacate a conviction upon a showing that the conviction was the direct result of being a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence. (§ 236.15, subd. (a).)

Defendant appeals from the denial of her petition, arguing: (1) the trial court's factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the trial court erred by utilizing incorrect evidentiary and legal standards beyond those specified in section 236.15; and (3) the matter should be remanded for full reconsideration of her petition in light of amendments made to section 236.15 during the pendency of her appeal. We conclude: (1) substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual findings; (2) the record does not affirmatively demonstrate the trial court misapplied section 236.15; and (3) any error based upon the failure to apply the current version of section 236.15 was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted criminal threats (§§ 644, 422, subd. (a); count 1); two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 2, 3) and one count of possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 3035, subd. (a)(1); count 4). The convictions arose from an incident on September 19, 2017, in which defendant allegedly sent several text and voice messages threatening to shoot A.M.; texted photographs of two firearms to A.M.; and was observed in possession of firearms and ammunition while driving toward A.M.'s residence. Defendant was eventually sentenced to a term of 13 years four months in state prison.^[2] Beginning in January 2022, defendant filed multiple petitions for relief seeking to vacate her convictions pursuant to newly enacted section 236.15. On September 30, 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on defendant's petition.

B. Relevant Evidence Submitted on Petition

1. Written Statements^[3]

In her written statements to the trial court, defendant stated that she and A.M. began a romantic relationship sometime in 2016; the two began cohabitating in 2017; and A.M. began to physically abuse defendant during this time. As a result of this alleged abuse, A.M. moved out of their shared home in July 2017. According to defendant, the two became involved in an altercation on September 8, 2017, in which A.M. allegedly physically assaulted defendant. Following this incident, defendant sought a restraining order against A.M. Defendant stated that, had she not suffered from this abuse, "the events of September 19, 2017 would have never happened."

In her declarations, defendant also claimed to have "suffered a lifetime of mental and mood related disorders [that] stem[med] from being raped, molested, and abused as a child"; to have been a victim of childhood sexual trauma; and to have had "a long history of mental and mood related disorders." In one declaration, defendant stated that she was acting erratically on the evening of September 19, 2017 because A.M. had stollen the medication defendant used to treat her bipolar disorder.

2. Police Report

Defendant submitted a police report dated November 2, 2017. According to the report, the deputy had responded to a call on September 8, at defendant's residence. When the deputy arrived, she encountered defendant and A.M., both of whom stated that they were only arguing, denied any physical altercation, and agreed that there was no risk of escalation. The deputy did not witness any visible injuries on either party, and the deputies left the scene.

On November 2, 2017, defendant called the deputy claiming that A.M. had subsequently physically assaulted defendant on the night of September 8, after deputies left the scene. The deputy met with defendant and took a statement. During this interview, the deputy did not observe any injuries on defendant "due to the report being taken several weeks after the incident." However, defendant provided photographs of injuries allegedly sustained during the incident, which were attached to the report.

The deputy proceeded to conduct a personal interview with A.M. A.M. denied any physical altercation on the evening of September 8, 2017. Instead, A.M. disclosed that defendant had threatened to shoot him on September 19, and that defendant was arrested as a result of that incident. He expressed the belief that A.M. fabricated her report of an assault as retaliation for her arrest on September 19.

3. Testimony of J.W. and R.C.

Defendant called two witnesses to testify in support of her petition. Both witnesses testified they had known defendant for years. They both testified to witnessing defendant with visible signs of physical injury during the time she was in a relationship with A.M. However, one witness admitted that he had never personally witnessed how defendant received any of her injuries. The other testified that he had personally seen A.M. forcefully grab defendant's arm on one occasion but formed his own assumptions regarding the causes of defendant's other injuries.

4. Defendant's testimony

Defendant also testified in support of her petition. She reaffirmed the facts set forth in her written statement that she began a romantic relationship with A.M. in 2016; the two began living together in 2017; A.M. physically abused her while they were living together; and A.M. moved out in July 2017. She recounted several incidents in which A.M. purportedly physically abused her, causing physical injuries. Defendant testified that she obtained a restraining order against A.M. in November 2017 as the result of this physical abuse. With respect to the events of September 19, resulting in her convictions, defendant testified that the firearms she was in possession of at the time belonged to A.M.; A.M. had called her the day prior to request that she return his belongings; and she was only attempting to comply with A.M.'s request. When asked why she would agree to this request, defendant stated her rationale was "To see [A.M.], I guess," and "I guess as an excuse to go see [A.M.]."

Defendant contradicted the claim in her written statement that she was acting erratically because A.M. had stollen her medication. Instead, defendant testified that she was attempting to see A.M. on the evening of September 19, 2017, because she believed A.M. was attempting to take medications in order to commit suicide or otherwise inflict self-harm.

When asked why defendant would message A.M. with a photograph of firearms as well as send messages with threatening comments, the only explanation defendant offered was that "[t]here w[ere] comments back and forth between both of us," and that she had sent threatening messages out of anger.

Defendant admitted she had been diagnosed with several mental health disorders, including bipolar, PTSD, and attention deficit disorder. Defendant also admitted that A.M.'s testimony at the time of her trial, if believed, could support the conclusion that defendant was the individual in their relationship who manipulated A.M., and not the other way around.

C. Ruling and Order

The trial court denied defendant's petition for vacatur of her convictions. The trial court found that defendant had established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant was a victim of physical abuse. However, the trial court found that the evidence presented failed to show that the commission of the offense was caused by defendant's status as a victim of prior abuse.

The trial court provided a statement of reasons on the record, explaining: "[T]his is my understanding, that [defendant]'s position is that, based on her domestic abuse, she was in some type of cycle of abuse, and that led her to commit the offense. Problem number 1, she is denying that she made a threat. Problem number 2, . . . [t]here's no expert testimony. There is nothing to inform this Court that this cycle of abuse is that you are separated from the abuser. [¶] You are still caught in this cycle to where you indeed would like to go back and start the relationship, and you make irrational decisions because of the abuse. . . . [A]nd her way of getting back together was a threat, a gun, a cry for help, or whatever. I didn't hear that. [¶] [W]hat I heard was a denial that she did not commit the [offense] at all. Not that [the offense] was committed based on the intimate partner violence. And I find that the burden has not been met, and I'm going to deny the petition."

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Background

In 2021, the Legislature enacted section 236.15, which became effective January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 695, §...