Filed 3/17/16 P. v. Jeon CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

IK SOO JEON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B264479

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA428834)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Melissa 

N. Widdifield, Judge. Affirmed.

Ik Soo Jeon, in pro. per.; Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________
2

An information charged Ik Soo Jeon with one count of willful infliction of 

corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant or girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 

1)1 and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). 

The information alleged, in the commission of the offense charged in count 1, Jeon 

personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim under circumstances involving 

domestic violence, within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (e). The 

information also alleged Jeon had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of 

sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), 667, subdivisions (b)-(j), and 1170.12. 

Substantial evidence presented at trial demonstrates: In the early morning on 

August 22, 2014, the victim, Ji Yoon L., woke one of the tenants in her apartment 

building by knocking on his door. Ms. L. was screaming, indicating she wanted him to 

dial 911. When the man opened his apartment door, he found Ms. L. lying on the ground 

and noticed she had blood on her face. The man dialed 911, and paramedics and officers 

responded. One of the responding officers observed that Ms. L. was “[e]xtremely 

bloody” and there was “huge swelling on her face.” Ms. L. told the officer her boyfriend 

(Jeon) had caused her injuries. During a subsequent interview at the hospital, Ms. L. told 

the officer Jeon punched her in the face approximately 10 times and held a kitchen knife 

to her throat. Ms. L. also told the emergency room physician and a detective that Jeon 

had caused her injuries by punching her multiple times. According to the emergency 

room physician, Ms. L. had “extensive” bruising on both the right and left sides of her 

face and also had multiple fractures in the bones in her face. 

The prosecution called Ms. L. to testify at trial. Ms. L. stated she lied to the police 

when she told them Jeon punched her multiple times in the face and held a knife to her 

neck. According to her testimony, at the time of the August 22, 2014 incident, she was 

under the influence of alcohol and medication she was taking for depression and panic 

attacks. She became upset when she came home to the apartment she shared with Jeon 

and found him packing to leave. She threatened to kill herself and grabbed a kitchen 

 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

knife and held it to her neck. As Jeon attempted to wrest the knife away from her, he 

accidentally hit her in the eye with his elbow. Ms. L. ran out of the apartment and down 

the stairs. She was wearing high heeled shoes and she slipped. She fell down and hit her 

head on the steps, sustaining injuries to her face.2

Jeon testified at trial in his defense. According to his testimony, he and Ms. L. had 

been arguing about her use of alcohol. When she came drunk in the early morning hours 

on August 22, 2014, he threatened to leave their apartment with his bags packed. Ms. L. 

grabbed a pair of scissors and held them in front of Jeon’s face. Jeon tried to grab the 

scissors away from Ms. L. and the scissors sliced his arm, leaving a mark. After Jeon 

threw the scissors away, Ms. L. grabbed a kitchen knife and held it to her neck as she 

threatened to kill herself. Jeon tried to wrest the knife away from Ms. L. and accidentally 

hit her in the face with his elbow, causing her nose to bleed. Jeon sustained scratches on 

his arm during the struggle. When the altercation ended, Jeon brought Ms. L. a towel for 

her nose and took her to their bedroom to lie down. Jeon went to another room and did 

not notice when Ms. L. left their apartment and went downstairs to the neighbor’s 

apartment. 

Jeon waived jury trial on the prior conviction allegations in the information and 

admitted he had a prior conviction for attempted criminal threats, a serious felony, within 

the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), 667, subdivisions (b)-(j), and 1170.12. 

The jury found Jeon guilty on count 1 (corporal injury) and also found true the 

great bodily injury special enhancement allegation. The jury further found Jeon not 

guilty on count 2 (assault with a deadly weapon).

After denying Jeon’s motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction under section 

1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, the trial court 

sentenced him to 15 years in prison: the middle term of three years on count 1, doubled to 

six years under the “Three Strikes” law, plus five years for the prior serious felony 

 

2 The neighbor testified Ms. L. was barefoot when she came to his door.
4

enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and four years for the great bodily 

injury enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (e).

Jeon appealed. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After 

examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this 

court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436. On November 13, 2015, we advised Jeon that he personally had 30 days to submit 

any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We also directed his appointed 

counsel to send the record and opening brief to Jeon immediately. On December 7, 2015, 

Jeon filed a handwritten letter brief.

Jeon devotes several pages of his letter brief to setting forth purported conflicts in 

the evidence. He asks this court to reweigh the evidence and view it in a light most 

favorable to him. This we may not do on appeal. It is for the jury, not the appellate 

court, to determine the “credibility of witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence.” 

(People v. Ramos (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1207.)

Jeon also raises ineffective assistance of counsel. “‘To establish ineffective 

assistance of counsel, a [defendant] must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s representation 

was deficient in falling below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing 

professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient representation subjected the [defendant] 

to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the 

result would have been more favorable to the [defendant]. [Citations.] “A reasonable 

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 

[Citation.]’” (In re Jones (1996) 13 Cal.4th 552, 561.)

Jeon argues his trial counsel “did not bother to learn nor understand the facts of 

the case. He did not prepare evidence or a defense, and his overall performance during 

trial was extremely poor and resulted in the loss of the trial.”

Specifically, Jeon faults his trial counsel for not timely preparing the following 

evidence to be presented at trial: (1) “proof” that Ms. L. was taking medication for a 

panic disorder and had twice visited the emergency room due to her panic disorder; (2) 

unidentified text messages; (3) letters from Ms. L. to the trial court in which she 
5

professed Jeon’s innocence of the charged offenses; (3) a voice recording of an argument 

between Jeon and Ms. L. that took place about a week before the incident during which 

Jeon told Ms. L. he did not want her to abuse alcohol anymore and would end the 

relationship if she continued to drink; and (4) photographs from Jeon’s cell phone of the 

scratches Jeon sustained on his arm during the struggle with Ms. L.

Assuming any of the purported evidence Jeon references were admissible, he 

cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to 

prepare and present this evidence. First, the evidence was cumulative. Ms. L. testified, 

among other things, (1) that she was taking medication for depression and panic attacks 

and was under the influence of the medication at the time of the incident, (2) that Jeon 

was innocent of the charged offenses, and (3) that Jeon threatened to leave her because 

she came home drunk. A police officer testified that he took photographs of the scratches 

Jeon said he sustained during his struggle with Ms. L. Apparently, the police department 

lost the memory card on which the photographs were stored, but both the officer and Jeon 

testified about the scratches on Jeon’s arm. Second, it is not reasonably probable the 

outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to Jeon had trial counsel presented 

this additional evidence. Clearly, the jury did not find credible Ms. L.’s and Jeon’s 

account of how Ms. L. sustained her injuries. The prosecution presented evidence, 

including testimony from the emergency room physician, that Ms. L.’s facial injuries 

were inconsistent with an inadvertent elbow to the face and a fall down the stairs, but 

were consistent with receiving multiple punches to the face. 

The record before us does not support Jeon’s other claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel—that his trial counsel did not understand the facts of the case or performed 

poorly during trial.

Furthermore, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Jeon’s 

appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues 

exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 

Cal.3d at p. 441.)
6

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CHANEY, Acting P. J.

We concur:

JOHNSON, J.

LUI, J.