Filed 9/1/20 P. v. Gales 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

LAWRENCE GALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D076347

 (Super. Ct. No. JCF38005)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, 

Marco D. Nunez, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, 

Charles C. Ragland, Alana Butler, and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

On October 31, 2017, Lawrence Gales, pled no contest to hit and run 

driving resulting in serious injury or death in violation of the Vehicle Code 

section 20001, subdivision (b)(2) in Imperial County Superior Court. Gales 

was granted three years of formal probation and specifically directed to obey 

all laws. 

On April 11, 2019, the probation department filed a petition for 

revocation of Gales’s probation, alleging that Gales failed to obey all laws. 

The petition alleged Gales committed attempted murder (Pen. Code,1

§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), 

criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and corporal injury to a cohabitant 

(§ 273.5, subd. (a)). 

On May 15, 2019, a contested probation revocation hearing resulted in

the trial court finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Gales had 

committed assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and corporal 

injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). 

On July 22, 2019, the court sentenced Gales to the low term of two 

years in state prison. 

Gales now appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient to show

that he committed assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and 

corporal injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). 

We find the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s 

revocation of Gales’s probation and affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.
3

BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2019, deputy Bryan Weimer was dispatched to a Salton 

City AM/PM gas station due to suspicious circumstances involving a vehicle 

parked at pump 17. Upon arrival, the vehicle, a silver BMW owned by Elena 

M. but driven by Gales, began to pull away, prompting Weimer to turn on his 

lights and sirens to stop Gales. Gales indicated to Weimer that Gales was at 

the AM/PM gas station with his girlfriend who was inside the bathroom 

changing the baby. 

Deputy Weimer entered the AM/PM and was directed by one of the 

store clerks to the break room where Weimer found Elena M. crying and 

upset. After confirming physical injuries on Elena M., Weimer called for 

medical personnel. Emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived shortly 

after, and while they were treating Elena M., deputy Weimer heard Elena M. 

tell the EMTs, “My boyfriend beat me up.” When asked about puncture 

wounds on her stomach, Elena M. told EMTs her boyfriend had stabbed her 

with a pocketknife. Elena M. went on to tell the EMTs she sustained her 

injuries near Rutner and De La Ocean in Salton City. Sometime later, either 

during the investigation or medical follow up, Elena M. informed Weimer

that Gales had punched her several times in the face and chest when the two 

were in Salton City. 

At trial Gales did not testify, but he introduced testimony of a phone

call between John A. Harter, an Imperial County deputy public defender, and 

Elena M. Harter received the phone number from Gales’s father, and the 

woman on the other line, who stated she was Elena M., said Gales was 

innocent of the attack and an ex-boyfriend and his associates attacked her 

when she stopped to inspect a flat tire on the side of the road while in 

Arizona. Harter went on to tell the court Elena M. had lied to Weimer about 
4

the attack because she was suffering from a panic attack and did not want to 

go to the hospital. 

Elena M. could not be found despite an extensive search of every known 

address or location associated with her in both Arizona and California. The 

primary testimony at the hearing consisted of the statements offered by 

Weimer and Harter. 

The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, Gales failed to 

obey all laws during his formal probation and committed assault with a 

deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and corporal injury to a cohabitant 

(§ 273.5, subd. (a)). 

DISCUSSION

Gales’s sole issue on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the trial court’s finding. Gales claims there was no evidence provided 

by Elena M. to implicate Gales as the boyfriend who beat her up. We reject 

Gales’s argument and affirm.

In order to show a violation of probation, the government must prove, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant violated one or more 

conditions of his probation. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 446-

447.) We review the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion with 

accompanying factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 

(People v. Butcher (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 310, 318.) It is not enough that the 

facts allow for a difference of opinion. (People v. Moya (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 

1307, 1312.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is 

so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it. 

(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377.) 

Here, there is substantial circumstantial evidence to show that Gales 

was the person responsible for Elena M.’s injuries: Weimer arrived at the 
5

AM/PM finding Gales driving Elena M.’s car. Gales identified Elena M. as 

his girlfriend when he was first approached by officer Weimer. Officer 

Weimer overheard Elena M. tell the EMT, “my boyfriend beat me up.” Elena 

M. told the EMTs treating her that her boyfriend had stabbed her with a 

pocketknife, and that the attack happened in Salton City. Even if the usage 

of “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” could be considered confusing, Elena M. told 

Weimer that Gales had punched her in the face and chest in Salton City

when discussing her injuries. Elena M.’s statements to Weimer and EMTs 

indicates Gales as not only her boyfriend, but the person who assaulted her 

in Salton City where the attack took place. 

Even the most stringent reading of the testimony provided strongly 

points to Gales as the person responsible for Elena M.’s injuries. Gales’s 

defense, that an ex-boyfriend followed Elena M. and assaulted her with his 

associates in Arizona, is supported only by the phone call between Harter and 

a woman claiming to be Elena M. Harter made no attempts to verify the 

person’s identity beyond asking for her name or verifying the phone number 

he received from Gales’s father. Taken at face value, Harter’s testimony still 

does not foreclose upon concluding Gales was the boyfriend who beat up 

Elena M. A reasonable trier of fact could believe Elena M.’s statements made 

to EMTs and Weimer were more credible than a phone call with defense 

counsel much later. Therefore, contrary to Gales’s assertion, there was 

plenty of evidence introduced to identify Gales as the boyfriend who beat her 

up.

Considering the evidence introduced at trial and the great deference 

accorded to the trial court’s decision (People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 

766, 773), the fact finder could reasonably conclude Gales was the person 

responsible for Elena M.’s injuries, and Gales had committed assault with a 
6

deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and corporal injury to a cohabitant

(§ 273.5, subd. (a)). Given Gales’s formal probationary status, the trial court 

acted well within its discretion in deciding to revoke Gales’s probation.

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

GUERRERO, J.