Filed 8/9/16 P. v. Winkler CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL LIONELL WINKLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D067975

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD257780)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth 

K. So, Judge. Affirmed.

Cannon & Harris and Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Julie L. Garland, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Megan J. Beale and Kelly Ann Johnson, Deputy Attorneys 

General, for the Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

A jury convicted Paul Lionell Winkler of assault by means likely to cause great 

bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1), corporal injury to a cohabitant 

resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3), false imprisonment by 

violence, menace, fraud or deceit (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a); count 4 ), and misdemeanor 

child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b); counts 5, 6, and 7). It found Winkler guilty of 

misdemeanor assault (§ 240) as a lesser included offense to assault with a deadly weapon 

alleged in count 2. The trial court found true allegations that Winkler had suffered one 

strike prior conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668) and had served four prior 

prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On the People's motion it struck an alleged serious 

felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced Winkler to an 

aggregate term of nine years in state prison, consisting of a doubled midterm of six years 

on count 3, a doubled midterm of six years on count 1 stayed under section 654, a 

concurrent doubled midterm of four years on count 4, 180 days each on counts 2, 5, 6 and 

7 (with counts 2 and 7 to be served concurrently and counts 5 and 6 to be consecutive to 

count 3), and consecutive one-year terms for each of three prior prison convictions. The 

court struck the fourth prior prison conviction. It ordered the nine-year prison term to be 

served consecutively to one year in local custody. 

On appeal, Winkler contends the trial court erred and denied him his state and 

federal constitutional rights to cross-examination and confrontation by admitting into 

evidence the prior testimony of Winkler's cohabitant, A.A., and two of her children after 

 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
3

the prosecutor failed to exercise due diligence in attempting to secure their presence at 

trial. He further contends the evidence was insufficient to support his count 7 conviction 

for endangerment as to another child of A.A. Finally, Winkler contends imposition of a 

concurrent term on the count 4 conviction violated section 654's proscription against dual 

punishment for a single act or course of conduct. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The factual background is taken in part from the November 2014 preliminary 

hearing testimony of A.A., R.A. and T.A., which was read into the record at trial after the 

trial court found them to be unavailable. 

A.A. had a ten-month dating relationship with Winkler, during which Winkler 

became abusive toward her and her children from another relationship, sons T.A. and 

R.A., and daughter B.A.2 A.A. also had a daughter with Winkler, P.A., who was born in 

July 2014. For a time, they all lived together in a one-room apartment at a transitional 

homeless shelter. 

After P.A. was born, Winkler began threatening and hitting A.A. On August 5, 

2014, while the family was out in public, Winkler accused A.A. of making sexual 

gestures to others by merely eating a piece of pizza, and told her she had "fuck[ed] up the 

day" by scratching her nose. A.A., Winkler and the two girls then returned to their 

apartment while the boys went to the library. Winkler told A.A. to enter the bathroom, 

 

2 We use the initial T. for A.A.'s younger son's nickname, as his given name starts 

with the same letter as his mother's. At the time of the preliminary hearing, T.A. was 

nine years old, R.A. was eleven years old, and B.A. was four years old. 
4

turned on music to block any noise, instructed her to get on her knees, pushed her down, 

tied her hands and mouth with clothing, and hit her repeatedly with his belt while he held 

her down and she begged him to stop. A.A.'s head struck the toilet while Winkler hit her. 

Winkler only stopped when A.A. told him she would sign a contract. Winkler untied 

A.A. and A.A. got up off the floor. A.A. told Winkler what to write and they both signed 

the contract, in which A.A. agreed not to do anything behind his back or make sexual 

gestures to any children or adults. After they signed the contract, they sat down "for a 

little bit," but Winkler kept asking A.A. how she had learned to make her gestures, and 

when she said she did not know, he began hitting her again with an electrical cord until 

A.A. lied and told him she had learned them from an old lady. At the time, B.A. was in 

bed sleeping and P.A. was on the bed. Winkler asked A.A. if she was teaching her 

gestures to her children, and when she responded yes, he told her when they returned they 

were "going to get their ass whooped."

A.A. was sitting on the bed with P.A. when T.A. and R.A. returned home. She 

remained quiet at Winkler's demand. Winkler told the boys to strip down to their boxer 

shorts, and that he would hit them—give them the "whooping of [their] life"—if they lied 

to him. He asked R.A. if he ever had sex with A.A. and other detailed and graphic 

questions about what they had done sexually. He then asked the same questions of T.A. 

When the boys responded in the negative, he raised up his belt. Winkler hit T.A. in the 

leg. Winkler continued asking the questions until the boys began to lie and say yes. B.A. 

was awake on the bed and close enough to hear the incident. Winkler thanked the boys 

and told A.A. to return to the bathroom, where he accused her of having sex with her 
5

sons, slapped her, and choked her with the belt until she passed out. When A.A. awoke, 

Winkler told her to fix her hair and cover the knot on her temple. 

A.A. was eventually able to run to the manager's office at the shelter. A.A. was 

scared and upset, and the manager, George Ossavou, felt she needed to confide in 

someone and needed help. A.A. told Ossavou that she had been the victim of domestic 

violence, it had been going on for a long time, and she wanted Winkler to leave. A.A. 

explained she had been choked and that Winkler forced her to say she was having sex 

with her children, and she showed Ossavou a bump on her forehead and a bruise on her 

arm. She did not want Ossavou to call police because she felt there would be 

repercussions. Ossavou saw that R.A. was sad and upset, and that T.A. and B.A. were 

crying. Ossavou spoke with all three children at the same time; R.A. told Ossavou that 

Winkler was "beating us up, he's threatening us, he's asking us to say that we're having 

sex with our mom." Ossavou could not recall what T.A. told him. 

Ossavou spoke to Winkler and told him to leave the program, to which Winkler 

responded by accusing A.A. of molesting her children. Ossavou eventually called police. 

Winkler left with P.A. 

San Diego Police Officer Jamie Huntley responded to Ossavou's call, and when 

she contacted A.A., saw a bump on A.A.'s head. A.A. was afraid and upset, and seemed 

"cloudy" from being hit in the head. A.A. complained of pain to her back and arm, and 

the officer saw two small scratch marks on A.A.'s upper/mid back. A.A. recounted to 

Officer Huntley what had happened that day, including when Winkler told her to enter 

the bathroom, knocked her to the ground, tied up her hands and mouth, and struck her 
6

with his belt. A.A. reported that Winkler grabbed the hair on the back of her head and 

slammed her head against the toilet. A.A. reported that Winkler strangled her with the 

belt and that she lost consciousness for a short period of time. Officer Huntley spoke 

with all three children. B.A. was just playful and wanted to look at the items in the 

officer's belt. T.A. and R.A. both appeared timid and afraid to discuss the matter, but 

both described in some detail Winkler's demand that they strip to their shorts and his 

questions and threats. T.A. also told the officer he could hear his mother from the 

bathroom asking Winkler why he was choking her and tying her hands, and he heard 

choking sounds from the door. According to T.A., Winkler told him, "I would have 

already killed this girl if she wasn't your mother." R.A. similarly reported that Winkler 

had told him, "The only reason why I haven't killed this bitch yet is because she's your 

mother." R.A. stated Winkler had hit him with Winkler's belt six or seven times before. 

A.A. went to the hospital and spoke with detectives. An emergency room 

physician observed she had a swollen bruise on her forehead. 

A police officer arrested Winkler the next day, and Winkler asked the officer to 

look at the contract that A.A. had signed the previous day promising not to "do any 

sexual gestures or signing to any kids or adults" behind Winkler's back or lie about it. 

DISCUSSION

I. Admission of Preliminary Hearing Testimony

A. Background

The trial court conducted jury selection and heard pretrial motions on March 11 

and 12, 2015. On Monday, March 16, 2015, the prosecutor notified the court that she had 
7

been informed early that morning that A.A. and her children were not at home. She 

related that A.A. had been personally served with a subpoena, district attorney 

investigator Todd Brehart had spoken with A.A. the previous Friday, they were ready to 

be present and Brehart was scheduled to pick them up that morning. She asked the court 

to issue a bench warrant and trail the trial until the next day. Winkler's counsel objected 

and asked that the case be dismissed. The court trailed the matter until the next morning. 

The next morning, the prosecutor confirmed that A.A. was not present in San 

Diego. She explained that after learning of A.A.'s absence, her office had pulled 

Winkler's jail calls, which showed approximately 22 calls to A.A. including on a different 

inmate's phone time, and during them A.A. had stated she was in Nebraska where her 

family lived. The prosecutor could not independently confirm that fact with the airlines. 

She reiterated that the People had subpoenaed A.A. and her children, but A.A. had 

chosen to ignore the subpoena and it was apparent from the calls that A.A. already knew 

she was not going to come to court; that she had "worked out this plan with [Winkler]." 

The prosecutor moved the court to find A.A. unavailable. Defense counsel again 

objected, pointing out that A.A. had stated in phone calls with Winkler that after the 

preliminary hearing she told the district attorney that she was not going to testify again 

and was not coming back.3 He argued the district attorney was on notice A.A. was 

planning to leave, but did not take necessary steps to secure her presence. 

 

3 At trial, the tape-recorded jail calls between Winkler and A.A. were played for the 

jury.
8

The court heard testimony from investigator Brehart, who was assigned to contact 

A.A. and her children, and district attorney investigator Robert Guadarama. Brehart 

testified that he and the prosecutor had met with A.A. before the preliminary hearing and 

served her with a subpoena, and she and her children appeared and testified at that 

hearing. Thereafter, investigator Guadarama subpoenaed A.A.4 and Brehart met with 

A.A. in person on Thursday of the prior week, explaining to her that they were going to 

trial on Monday and he would personally pick her and the children up and drive them to 

court. Brehart testified that at the time, A.A. seemed "on board" with that plan, and at no 

point told him she did not want to testify and would be leaving town. He stated that A.A. 

gave him no indication she would fail to appear. When Brehart arrived at A.A.'s 

apartment on Monday, it was vacant. He spoke with some of the residents as well as the 

property manager, and was told no one had seen A.A. since the previous Friday. On 

cross-examination, Brehart admitted he had some difficulty contacting A.A. on her phone 

before he met with her the previous week, and that he had access to jail calls but did not 

conduct an investigation into any jail calls leading up to trial. Brehart testified that he 

 

4 Investigator Guadarama later testified that he went to A.A.'s apartment on March 

6, 2015, and when he knocked on the door A.A. answered right away. He identified 

himself and the fact he was serving her subpoenas, and he served A.A. with subpoenas 

for her and her children. Investigator Guadarama testified that at no point did A.A. 

indicate she was not interested in showing up for trial or she was going to be leaving the 

state. His only conversation with her was to tell her he was serving the subpoenas and 

she should call the office to coordinate, and he gave her contact numbers in case anything 

changed. After hearing this testimony, the trial court found that the foundation had been 

laid for admission of the preliminary hearing testimony. 
9

was not aware that A.A. was in contact with Winkler via jail calls or putting money on 

his prison books, even though he had access to that information. 

Defense counsel argued that due diligence required the prosecution to listen to 

A.A.'s jail calls with Winkler and had that been done, the prosecution would have known 

A.A. planned to leave the state. The prosecutor pointed out that every indication was that 

A.A. was on board; that she had been subpoenaed and had an in-person meeting with 

investigator Brehart who confirmed he would pick her up for trial. She argued her office 

had no idea A.A. was not planning to come or that she was talking to Winkler on jail 

calls, and had A.A. been uncooperative, they would have reviewed the jail calls, but 

every conversation with A.A. was to the contrary. 

The court found A.A., T.A. and R.A. were subpoenaed and unavailable as 

witnesses, and ruled the People could admit their sworn testimony from the preliminary 

hearing.

B. Legal Principles

The confrontation clauses of both the federal and California Constitutions 

guarantee a criminal defendant the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses. (U.S. 

Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const. art. I, § 15.) This right, however, is not absolute. 

(People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 440; People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 

897 (Cromer).) "If a witness is unavailable at trial and has given testimony at a previous 

court proceeding against the same defendant at which the defendant had the opportunity 

to cross-examine the witness, the previous testimony may be admitted at trial. In a 

criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the witness is unavailable 
10

and, additionally, that it made a 'good-faith effort' [citation] or, equivalently, exercised 

reasonable or due diligence to obtain the witness's presence at trial." (Sanchez, at p. 440.) 

Evidence Code section 1291, subdivision (a), provides: "Evidence of former 

testimony is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a 

witness and: [¶] . . . [¶] . . . The party against whom the former testimony is offered 

was a party to the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had the 

right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive similar 

to that which he has at the hearing." A witness is considered "unavailable" if "[a]bsent 

from the hearing and the proponent of his or her statement has exercised reasonable 

diligence but has been unable to procure his or her attendance by the court's process."

(Evid. Code, § 240, subd. (a)(5).) " '[T]he term "due diligence" is "incapable of a 

mechanical definition," but it "connotes persevering application, untiring efforts in good 

earnest, efforts of a substantial character." ' " (People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 

p. 440; People v. Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 904.) Relevant considerations include 

whether the search was timely begun, the importance of the witness's testimony, and 

whether leads were competently explored. (Cromer, at p. 904.) In this regard, California 

and federal constitutional requirements are the same. (People v. Herrera (2010) 49 

Cal.4th 613, 622.) 

In assessing the prosecution's reasonable diligence in locating a missing witness so 

as to use that witness's preliminary hearing testimony, we conduct a "twofold inquiry."

(People v. Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 900.) We first determine the historical facts: 

"a detailed account of the prosecution's failed efforts to locate the absent witness." (Ibid.) 
11

If those facts are in dispute, we deferentially review the trial court's factual findings.

(Ibid.) Second, we determine whether these historical facts amount to due diligence by 

the prosecution, which requires application of an objective, constitutionally-based legal 

test to the historical facts. (Ibid.; see People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 440 ["The 

reviewing court defers to the trial court's determination of the historical facts if supported 

by substantial evidence, but it reviews the trial court's ultimate finding of due diligence 

independently, not deferentially"].)

Where a witness is " 'detained' or 'kept away' by the 'means or procurement' of the 

defendant" (Giles v. California (2008) 554 U.S. 353, 359) with the defendant's intent to 

cause the witness's unavailability, a common law exception to the bar of the 

confrontation clause is applicable. (Giles, at pp. 359-361; see also Davis v. Washington 

(2006) 547 U.S. 813, 833 ["one who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing 

forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation"].) Under this exception, commonly 

known as "forfeiture by wrongdoing," the defendant must affirmatively "engage[] in 

conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying." (Giles, at pp. 360, 365; see 

Carlson v. Attorney General of California (9th Cir. 2015) 791 F.3d 1003, 1010.) "Simple 

tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party's previously expressed decision either to skip 

town himself rather than testifying or to prevent another witness from appearing does not 

'cause' or 'effect' or 'bring about' or 'procure' a witness's absence. Such passive behavior 

is therefore not a sufficient reason to foreclose a defendant's Sixth Amendment 

confrontation rights at trial." (Carlson, at p. 1010.) The doctrine is not limited to 

situations where the defendant murders the witness (see People v. Jones (2012) 207 
12

Cal.App.4th 1392, 1399); it applies to acts intended to prevent a witness from testifying 

and to acts intended to dissuade a witness from cooperating with law enforcement 

authorities. (People v. Banos (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 483, 501.) The rule is necessary to 

avoid "an intolerable incentive for defendants to bribe, intimidate, or even kill witnesses 

against them." (Giles, at p. 365; Carlson, at p. 1009.) 

C. Contentions

Winkler contends the prosecution failed to meet its burden to establish it exercised 

due diligence in its attempts to procure A.A., T.A. and R.A. for trial. He maintains the 

prosecutor was aware that individuals who allege domestic violence often are not 

cooperative in pursuing criminal charges against the abuser, and she had reason to believe 

A.A. did not want to be involved in prosecuting him, as A.A. specifically told Ossavou

she wanted Winkler removed but did not want Ossavou to call the police. Winkler points 

out that during jail calls, A.A. stated she had informed the prosecutor that she was not 

coming back after the preliminary hearing, and he argues the prosecutor made no attempt 

to maintain contact with A.A. in the four months between the November 2014 

preliminary hearing and the trial, which was initially set for January 2015, and then 

eventually March 11, 2015. He argues that the "prosecution in this matter failed to 

establish that A.A. and her sons were unavailable because it did nothing more than 

attempt to confirm A.A.'s presence in Nebraska before seeking to introduce the 

transcripts of the preliminary hearing testimony" and it failed to make any attempt to 

compel their attendance through the cooperation of Nebraska courts. 
13

The People respond that Winkler forfeited his confrontation clause challenge 

because he was responsible for A.A.'s unavailability as evidenced by his jail calls in 

which he told her not to show up at trial, and that the prosecutor would "just dismiss this 

shit" if she did not attend. They further maintain that the prosecutor exercised reasonable 

diligence in attempting to procure A.A. and her children's attendance at trial; that the 

evidence showed she did not know A.A. planned to be absent and as a result did not need 

to take steps to prevent her from leaving. The People argue that the prosecutor's 

obligation to seek assistance from the Nebraska courts did not arise because the 

prosecution did not know if A.A. was in Nebraska. Finally, the People argue that error, if 

any, in admitting the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the 

testimony from Ossavou and others who related what A.A. had told them about the 

incident and established the elements of Winkler's offenses. 

D. Analysis

We need not decide whether the prosecutor exercised reasonable or due diligence 

in locating A.A. or attempting to obtain her and her children's presence at trial, because 

we agree with the People that Winkler forfeited his constitutional right to confrontation 

by causing A.A.'s absence.5 

 

5 As we have summarized above, during the hearing on A.A.'s unavailability, the 

People discussed Winkler and A.A.'s jail calls, describing how they showed the two had 

"worked out [a] plan" for A.A. to absent herself. The People never specifically argued 

below, however, that forfeiture by wrongdoing prevented Winkler from challenging 

admission of A.A. and her children's preliminary hearing testimony, and the trial court 

did not rule on the doctrine. The People argue forfeiture by wrongdoing in their 

respondent's brief, and in reply Winkler addresses the issue on the merits, without 
14

The first jail call admitted into evidence from Winkler to A.A. took place on 

March 2, 2015, nine days before trial was to start. Winkler, who was using another 

inmate's telephone time, told A.A. he had had a professional visit, that the district 

attorney was probably expecting to get in contact with A.A., and he asked A.A. if she had 

heard from her. A.A. told him she had not, and the following exchange took place:

"Winkler: Oh okay, cool. Well yeah, the—the main thing is if you can babe, you 

know, this is what, this—this is what is needed, that you don't show up at all. That way 

she can't . . .

"[A.A.]: Uh huh.

"Winkler: . . . she can't push no script. You know what I'm saying, the D.A.

"[A.A.]: I know.

[¶] . . . [¶]

"Winkler: Oh okay. Well this is the reason why I got the uh . . . , the other time, 

because that way, you know, we can talk freely without it having being a my [sic] 

recorded call . . . ."

[¶] . . . [¶]

"Winkler: . . . Yeah so hopefully, you know what I'm saying, well, when, if that 

happens, you know what I'm saying they'll just dismiss this shit. You know?

"[A.A.]: Okay.

 

challenging the People's ability to raise it for the first time on appeal. In any event, 

because the underlying circumstances and content of the jail calls are not in dispute, the 

question is one of law that may be raised for the first time on appeal. (See, e.g., People v. 

Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1061; Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 394; UFITEC, 

S.A. v. Carter (1977) 20 Cal.3d 238, 249, fn. 2.)
15

"Winkler: And then I, well I can come on home and shit and be with my loved 

ones, you know.

"[A.A.] Well I told you, you know the first time, when I did it, I thought it was 

going to be easy, but it was not, so . . . 

"Winkler: Right.

"[A.A.] I don't think I'm going to be doing that shit again.

"Winkler: Yeah, I hope not, because I mean, shit, if, if, if you did I mean it's like, 

everything that I'm talking about happening as far us having family [sic] . . . another 

baby, uh, me trying to raise [P.A.] with you and all that shit goes out the window . . . 

"[A.A.]: That's crazy though.

"Winkler: But there is nothing they can do if you don't show up, but that's the 

thing.

"[A.A.]: Well if I would've known the second time . . . 

"Winkler: Right.

"[A.A.]: . . . I mean, I already told 'em like, I can, you know, I was like, I told 

them like, I don't think I'm gonna be doing this again.

"Winkler: And what . . . 

"[A.A.]: So . . . 

"Winkler: . . . she say?

"[A.A.]: She just looked at me, she was like, well we might be looking for you 

again, I was like, well good luck, that's what I told her."

"Winkler: Oh she said . . . 
16

"[A.A.]: They probably will.

"Winkler: . . . she was going to be looking for you again?

"[A.A.]: That's what she like, we might need you to come back again. I'm like, 

that's it, I'm not coming back.

"Winkler: Yeah, nah, yeah don't work with them baby we, we got plans, I mean, 

and, and if you work with them, then that means we have to go against me and then well, 

whatever we planning . . . , it's not going to work, 'cause I'm not going to be able to be 

there.

"[A.A.]: I know." 

The second call admitted into evidence took place on March 11, 2015, the day set 

for trial. During that call, Winkler asked A.A. if she had gone "over there" and A.A. 

replied that she had not, and that she was going to Nebraska anyway with the children 

and then would come back with P.A., since she had missed the court date and someone 

might be looking for her. Winkler responded: "Oh okay. Well, . . . spend a couple days 

up there, wait you know, wait till this shit is over with, till you hear from me. Right?" 

A.A. stated, "Okay."

We conclude the jail calls constitute substantial evidence that Winkler intended to 

convince A.A. to ignore the prosecution's efforts to secure her attendance and to procure 

her absence by asking her to evade the district attorney and not show up for trial. When 

A.A. told Winkler later that she was going to Nebraska but returning, he implored her to 

stay out of California until he contacted her. In her telephone conversations with 

Winkler, A.A. expressed a desire to cooperate with him and not testify in court. The 
17

United States Supreme Court stated in Giles v. California: " 'The Constitution gives the 

accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against 

him; but if a witness is absent by his own wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if 

competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he kept away . . . . [The 

Constitution] grants him the privilege of being confronted with the witnesses against him; 

but if he voluntarily keeps the witnesses away, he cannot insist on his privilege.' " (Giles

v. California, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 372.)

II. Sufficiency of Evidence of Misdemeanor Child Endangerment (Count 7)

Winkler contends his conviction on count 7, the misdemeanor child endangerment 

charge as to B.A., must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove his 

acts were directed at B.A., witnessed by her, or caused her unjustified mental suffering. 

More specifically, Winkler maintains that there was no evidence that B.A., who was then 

three years old, was listening to the incident involving his questioning T.A. and R.A. 

about engaging in sex or specific sexual activity with their mother, and the evidence 

showed B.A. was sleeping at the time he was hitting A.A. in the bathroom. He argues 

B.A.'s presence in the room, without more evidence, is insufficient to prove his conduct 

inflicted mental suffering upon her. 

"Where, as here, a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, 

we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to 

determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—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. [Citations.] A reviewing court must reverse a 
18

conviction where the record provides no discernible support for the verdict even when 

viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment below. [Citation.] Nonetheless, it is 

the jury, not the reviewing court, that must weigh the evidence, resolve conflicting 

inferences, and determine whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. [Citation.] And if the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, 

the reviewing court's view that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled 

with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment." (People v. Hubbard

(2016) 63 Cal.4th 378, 392.) The substantial evidence review standard is the same in 

cases in which the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Salazar 

(2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 242.) 

Section 273a defines misdemeanor child abuse. A person is guilty of the crime if 

that person, among other things, " 'willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or 

inflicts thereon unjustifiable . . . mental suffering' 'under circumstances or conditions 

other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death.' " (People v. Hamlin

(2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1434, citing § 273a, subd. (b); see also People v. 

Moussabeck (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 975, 980.) The statute "encompasses a wide variety 

of situations and includes both direct and indirect conduct." (People v. Burton (2006) 

143 Cal.App.4th 447, 454.) When a charge of child abuse is based on the mental 

suffering resulting from a child being exposed to physical abuse by one parent against the 

other, the theory at issue is indirect child abuse. (Hamlin, at p. 1441, citing Burton, at pp. 

450-451, 454-455.) 
19

In Burton, the court concluded the defendant's section 273a, subdivision (b) 

conviction was supported both legally and factually where the defendant's eight-year-old 

son observed the immediate and "horrible, bloody aftermath" (People v. Burton, supra, 

143 Cal.App.4th at p. 455) of his father's acts in slashing several deep cuts in his mother's 

face. (Id. at p. 451.) The court rejected the defendant's argument that because the attack 

was not directed at his son and did not occur in his presence, the section did not apply. 

(Id. at pp. 453-455.) The record contained not only evidence that the defendant knew of 

the boy's presence, but that following the attack, the boy screamed about having to leave 

and tried to put the car in reverse, later wished himself dead in journal entries, and got in 

trouble at school. (Id. at p. 455.) The court concluded that "[a] reasonable person would 

easily recognize that a child would endure unjustifiable metal suffering by being on the 

scene . . . ." (Ibid.)6

The evidence as to B.A. is certainly not as severe as that in Burton. However, 

unlike Burton, it involves evidence from which the jury could conclude B.A. directly 

witnessed Winkler's abusive acts toward her brothers R.A. and T.A., and at least heard 

Winkler choke her mother. The evidence showed that B.A. was in close proximity on a 

bed within a single room apartment at the time, and A.A. testified B.A. was awake and 

 

6 In Hamlin, the court held the defendant's right to parent and right of free 

expression was not infringed by his conviction of misdemeanor child abuse based on 

"willfully inflict[ing] unjustifiable mental suffering" where the evidence established he 

falsely told his children (who were of unspecified age) their grandfather was a child 

molester and leader of satanic cult who intended to abduct or kill them, and that the 

grandfather and children's mother had molested them in the past. (People v. Hamlin, 

supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1421, 1442-1444.)
20

"close enough to hear" when Winkler was threatening the boys. The evidence permitted 

the jury to conclude that B.A. watched and at least listened while Winkler ordered her 

brothers to strip down to their boxer shorts, told them they would get the "whooping of 

[their] life" if they lied, questioned them in offensive language as he had his belt raised 

and at the ready, and hit T.A. in the leg. After Winkler addressed the boys, he turned his 

attention back to A.A. and told her to return to the bathroom, where he accused her of 

having sex with her sons, slapped her, and choked her with the belt until she passed out. 

This court must presume the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce 

from the evidence (People v. Huynh (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 285, 304), and here, the jury 

could reasonably infer that, like T.A., B.A. also heard her mother's pleas and choking 

sounds coming from the bathroom. Thus, B.A. was present "at the scene" when 

Winkler's abuses of R.A. and T.A., and his attack on A.A., occurred, and as it was a 

single room apartment, the jury could readily conclude Winkler knew she was present. 

(People v. Burton, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 455.) Ossavou testified that when A.A. 

and the children came to his office, T.A. and B.A. were crying. As the Burton court 

observed, children "often witness domestic violence" and such children "suffer adverse 

effects similar to victims of direct physical and sexual abuse." (Burton, at p. 456.) There 

is no evidence to suggest that because B.A. was three years old she did not appreciate 

what was being said or that violent acts were occurring, and we conclude the jury could 

reasonably infer from her reaction in the manager's office that she did so. Winkler does 

not contest that his acts against A.A. and her sons were willful. The existence of other 

evidence that might allow a different conclusion does not affect our substantial evidence 
21

review. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that 

Winkler willfully permitted B.A. to suffer unjustifiable mental suffering.

III. Imposition of Concurrent Term on Count 4

Winkler contends the court's imposition of a concurrent prison term on count 4—

false imprisonment by violence or menace—violated section 654's proscription against 

dual punishment for a single act or course of conduct. He maintains that his count 1 

(assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury), count 3 (injury to 

cohabitant resulting in traumatic injury) and count 4 offenses "resulted from a single 

indivisible course of conduct with a single objective," that the acts underlying them 

occurred within a very short period of time, and the acts were part of a continuous course 

of conduct in that according to A.A., he was upset at her for making sexual signs and 

looking at another man on the street, directed her into the bathroom, and bound and hit 

her all to "confront and punish A.A. for her transgressions." According to Winkler, there 

is no substantial evidence to support the court's factual determination that the offenses 

involved more than one objective, and the sentence on count 4 must be reversed and 

stayed. 

Pointing out the trial court stayed Winkler's six-year sentence on count 1, the 

People respond that substantial evidence supports the court's implied finding that Winkler 

had multiple independent objectives in falsely imprisoning A.A. and inflicting corporal 

injury on her. Specifically, they argue that when Winkler first followed A.A. into the 

bathroom, told her to get on her knees and tied her hands and mouth, his objective was to 

have greater ease in exercising control over her. They argue the court could infer that 
22

Winkler committed these acts to prevent A.A. from escaping, to prevent the children 

from observing what he was going to do to their mother, and to humiliate her and make 

her feel helpless, and when he subsequently hit A.A., his objective was to punish her for 

her conduct. Finally, the People argue that Winkler's false imprisonment of A.A. was not 

merely incidental to the infliction of corporal injury, or vice versa, as Winkler could have 

inflicted corporal injury on A.A. whether or not she was imprisoned. 

Section 654 provides: "An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by 

different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the 

longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be 

punished under more than one provision." (§ 654, subd. (a).) The statute "generally 

precludes multiple punishments for a single physical act that violates different provisions 

of law [citation] as well as multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct that 

violates more than one criminal statute." (People v. Newman (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 

103, 111-112.) " ' "Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives 

rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and 

objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant 

may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one." ' " (People v. 

Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 885; see also People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th 331, 

341.) It is not the temporal proximity of the offenses that determines whether the 

transaction is indivisible. (People v. Capistrano, at p. 886.) " ' "The defendant's intent 

and objective are factual questions for the trial court; [to permit multiple punishments,] 

there must be evidence to support [the] finding the defendant formed a separate intent and 
23

objective for each offense for which he was sentenced." ' " (Ibid.) Accordingly, we 

review the court's express or implied determination that two crimes were separate, 

involving separate objectives, for substantial evidence. (People v. Brents (2012) 53 

Cal.4th 599, 618; People v. Blake (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 509, 512.)

The trial court implicitly concluded that section 654 authorized separate 

punishment for the count 3 and count 4 offenses; it did not explain how Winkler had 

independent objectives in inflicting the corporal injuries on A.A. and imprisoning A.A. 

with violence or menace. However, the probation report did discuss and explain the 

probation officer's section 654 conclusions: "Count 1 relates to the first instance in which 

the defendant assaulted the victim in the bathroom by striking her with his belt. Count 4 

relates to the second beating in the bathroom, during which the defendant [sic] attempted 

to get away but was forcibly detained in the bathroom. Count 3 appears to relate to the 

third time the defendant inflicted willful corporal injury of his girlfriend in the bathroom. 

[¶] The first two crimes are separated by a period of time when the defendant and the 

victim were outside of the bathroom discussing a contract and arguing about the 

defendant's accusation that the victim had sex with her sons. The second and third crimes 

are separated by another period of time when both Mr. Winkler and [A.A.] were in the 

living room, and Mr. Winkler was interrogating the children. In addition, it appears the 

first beating was meant as punishment for the victim's alleged sexual signaling to men in 

the park, the second as retribution for the victim's failure to sign the contract, and the 
24

third in reaction to the children's forced admission to having sex with their mother. As 

the three crimes are separated by both time and intent, [section] 654 does not apply."7 

We conclude substantial evidence supports the court's decision not to stay 

Winkler's sentence on count 4, which was based on Winkler forcing A.A. into the 

bathroom the second time and choking her. The evidence does not establish a single 

indivisible course of conduct with a single objective. Rather, it shows Winkler forced 

A.A. into the bathroom first after they returned home to beat her with his belt, and then 

forced her back into the bathroom again after he interrogated her sons, the second time 

choking her with his belt. The incidents were separated by a break in time, during which 

A.A. was sitting quietly on the bed with P.A., and the trial court could readily conclude 

Winkler harbored independent intents and objectives in first forcing A.A. into the 

bathroom to punish her for her supposed signaling to men, and then later to punish her for 

purportedly engaging in sex with her children. Though Winkler suggests the prosecutor 

impliedly conceded an indivisible course of conduct in her closing arguments to the 

jury,8 it was the court's obligation at sentencing to consider section 654, and we look to 

the trial evidence as well as the probation officer's analysis, to decide whether substantial 

evidence supports the court's implicit finding. 

 

7 Additionally, in discussing the issue of consecutive versus concurrent terms, the 

probation report states: "As explained above, the crimes in Counts 1, 3, and 4 had

different objectives and were predominantly independent of each other. They involved 

separate acts of violence and the defendant had ample time after each assault to 

reconsider his course of action, so they cannot be considered a single period of aberrant 

behavior. Thus, consecutive sentencing is justified. However, the overall prison 

exposure available with concurrent sentencing appears appropriate, and concurrent 

sentencing will be recommended." 
25

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

 

8 In part, during closing arguments the prosecutor described count 3 as based on 

Winkler inflicting injuries to A.A.'s head and back, though she stated it "technically 

encompass[ed] the entire course of conduct that happened on August 5th by the 

defendant." She described count 4 as ordering A.A. into the bathroom and tying her with 

the "additional act of violence" of taking "out the belt and then . . . smash[ing] [A.A.'s] 

head into that porcelain toilet . . . [causing] visible injuries."