Filed 5/15/23 P. v. Parker CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

YULONDA PARKER,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G060887

 (Super. Ct. No. 18ZF0006)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. 

Prickett, Judge. Affirmed.

Daniel J. Kessler, 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, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U. 

Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

After a bench trial, appellant Yulonda Parker was convicted of the 

following offenses involving her stepgranddaughter L.H.: torture (Pen. Code, § 206;1

count 1); child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 2); and three counts of assault with a 

deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 3-5). Each count of assault with a deadly 

weapon involved a different weapon: a mallet in count 3; a knife in count 4; and a metal 

baseball bat in count 5. The court found Parker personally inflicted great bodily injury 

upon L.H. during the commission of the child abuse offense in count 2 and the assaults 

with deadly weapons in counts 3 and 4. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) The court found not true 

the allegation Parker personally inflicted great bodily injury in the assault with the 

baseball bat in count 5. Parker was sentenced to life in prison for her torture conviction 

in count 1. The court imposed and stayed the sentences on the remaining counts and 

enhancements under section 654.

On appeal, Parker contends the evidence was insufficient to support her 

assault conviction involving the metal baseball bat in count 5 and the conviction must be 

reversed. She asserts the prosecution failed to prove she used the bat in a manner likely 

to cause death or great bodily injury. We disagree. While L.H. did not directly testify as 

to how much force Parker used when striking her with the metal bat, the court could 

reasonably infer such from the bat’s composition and the significant injuries it caused to 

L.H.’s legs. Thus, we reject Parker’s contention and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

2

After running away from her mother, L.H. went to live with her father, her 

stepmother, and their three children in Anaheim. Parker, L.H.’s stepgrandmother, lived 

nearby. 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2

 In light of the issue raised on appeal, we provide an abbreviated summary of the facts.
3

L.H. was 14 years old and had a difficult time adjusting to living with her 

father and his family, all of whom she barely knew. Her stepsiblings made accusations 

against her, and her behavior did not always conform to what her father, stepmother, and 

Parker expected of her. Beginning in 2018, when L.H. was 15 years old, she was 

physically abused by her father, stepmother,

3

and Parker.

In June 2018, L.H.’s stepmother took her to the home of her stepmother’s 

childhood friend in Los Angeles. Her stepmother told the friend things had gone “too 

far” and asked if L.H. could stay with her while L.H.’s injuries healed. The friend 

refused because she was opposed to the abuse being inflicted upon L.H. and did not want 

to be involved. L.H. and her stepmother left, but later that day, L.H. was dropped off at 

the friend’s house. The friend took L.H. to a Los Angeles police station. The police 

interviewed L.H. and took her to a hospital.

The doctor who treated L.H. noted she had extensive injuries. L.H. had two 

black eyes, a broken nose, swollen lips, broken teeth, broken bones, and burns. She had 

bruises, scars, healing wounds, and open wounds all over her body. L.H. was very pale,

and her extremities were swollen. 

L.H. had scars and bruises on her back from Parker twice whipping her 

with an extension cord. On multiple occasions, Parker bit L.H. and left bite marks on 

L.H.’s back and arm. Parker struck L.H.’s hands with a rubber mallet multiple times, 

fracturing two fingers on one hand and breaking a finger on the other. Parker hit L.H. in 

the mouth with the handle end of a knife several times, chipping L.H.’s two front teeth. 

She also struck L.H. in the mouth with the handle of a pair of scissors, causing injury to 

L.H.’s lips. Parker used a cane to hit L.H. in the head numerous times. 

3

 L.H.’s father and stepmother were jointly tried with Parker and convicted of torture and

child abuse and found to have personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission 

of the child abuse offense. The court also found L.H.’s stepmother guilty of assaulting 

L.H. with a deadly weapon, a knife. As they are not parties to this appeal, we do not 

discuss the facts underlying their convictions. 
4

As for L.H.’s lower extremities, Parker stabbed the bottom of L.H.’s feet 

with a sewing needle, causing numerous small puncture wounds. She hit L.H. in the legs 

with a metal baseball bat several times, causing bruising. L.H. had bruising on her inner 

thighs, the back of her thighs, and the back of her knees. Her legs were swollen, bruised, 

and tender from her knees to her feet. Because of the injuries to her feet and legs, L.H. 

had difficulty walking when she was taken to the hospital. Upon seeing L.H.’s swollen 

legs, the doctor thought they were broken, but x-rays showed no broken bones. L.H. 

remained in the hospital for two to three weeks while she recovered from her injuries. 

DISCUSSION

Parker contends her conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in count 5, 

which was based on her hitting L.H. with a metal baseball bat, must be reversed because 

the evidence was legally insufficient to prove she used the bat in a manner likely to cause 

death or great bodily injury. We conclude her conviction is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

I.

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

“When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged 

on appeal, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to 

determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value 

from which a trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[Citation.] Our review must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every 

fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. 

Zaragoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 21, 44.) “‘“A reasonable inference, however, may not be 

based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, 

conjecture, or guess work. . . . A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from 

evidence rather than . . . a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.”’” 
5

(People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1133.) “‘“‘If the circumstances reasonably 

justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the 

circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not 

warrant a reversal of the judgment.’”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Valdez (2004) 

32 Cal.4th 73, 104.) “A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it 

appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to 

support”’ the [trier of fact]’s verdict. [Citation.]” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 

43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) 

Based on her use of a metal baseball bat to hit L.H., Parker was convicted 

of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), which 

prohibits the commission of “an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon 

or instrument . . . .” As used in this statute, “‘a “deadly weapon” is “any object, 

instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and 

likely to produce, death or great bodily injury.”’ [Citation.]” (In re B.M. (2018) 

6 Cal.5th 528, 532-533 (B.M.).) Some objects, such as blackjacks and dirks, have been 

found to be deadly weapons as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 533.) “Other objects, while not 

deadly per se, may be used, under certain circumstances, in a manner likely to produce 

death or great bodily injury. In determining whether an object not inherently deadly or 

dangerous is used as such, the trier of fact may consider the nature of the object, the 

manner in which it is used, and all other facts relevant to the issue. [Citations.]” (People 

v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1029.) 

In B.M., our Supreme Court elucidated three principles that help guide the 

analysis as to whether an object that is not inherently deadly or dangerous is used as a 

deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1). (B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at 

pp. 533-537.) “First, the object alleged to be a deadly weapon must be used in a manner 

that is not only ‘capable of producing’ but also ‘“likely to produce death or great bodily 

injury.”’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 533.) The Supreme Court explained, “The use of an 
6

object in a manner ‘likely to produce’ death or great bodily injury [citation] requires more 

than a mere possibility that serious injury could have resulted from the way the object 

was used.” (Id. at p. 534.) Second, the trier of fact may not speculate “as to how the 

object could have been used.” (Ibid.) Instead, the determination of whether the item is a 

deadly weapon “must rest on evidence of how the defendant actually ‘used’ the object. 

[Citations.]” (Ibid.) “Although it is inappropriate to consider how the object could have 

been used as opposed to how it was actually used, it is appropriate in the deadly weapon 

inquiry to consider what harm could have resulted from the way the object was actually 

used.” (Id. at p. 535.) “[A] mere possibility of serious injury is not enough. But the 

evidence may show that serious injury was likely, even if it did not come to pass.” (Ibid.) 

“Third, . . . the extent of actual injury or lack of injury is also relevant.” (Ibid.) 

With these principles in mind, we consider Parker’s argument the evidence 

was legally insufficient to prove she used the metal baseball bat in a manner capable of 

producing and likely to produce death or great bodily injury because L.H. did not testify 

as to the force used or the specific manner in which Parker struck her with the bat. 

II.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS PARKER’S CONVICTION

The court reasonably found Parker’s manner of hitting L.H. with the metal 

baseball bat made it a deadly weapon. L.H. testified the injuries to her legs were caused 

by Parker hitting her with the metal baseball bat several times. The doctor who treated 

L.H. at the hospital described bruising on L.H.’s inner thighs, the back of her thighs, the 

back of her knees, and from her knees to her feet. L.H.’s legs were so swollen and 

bruised, the doctor initially believed L.H.’s legs were broken. The detective who spoke 

to L.H. at the hospital also noted the injuries to her legs and testified L.H.’s legs were so 

swollen and bruised there was no difference in the size of her thighs and calves. A 

photograph of the bruising on the front of the lower half of L.H.’s legs was admitted into 

evidence. Because of the injuries to her feet and legs, L.H. had difficulty walking. Based 
7

on the extent of the injuries to L.H.’s legs, the court could reasonably infer the degree of 

force Parker used to strike her with the metal baseball bat. (See B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at 

p. 535 [extent of actual injury is relevant in determining whether object was used as a 

deadly weapon under § 245, subd. (a)(1)]; People v. Brown (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1, 7 

[“the nature of . . . injuries and their location are relevant facts for consideration in 

determining whether an object was used in a manner capable of producing and likely to 

produce great bodily injury”].) L.H.’s injuries indicate the blows were forceful and the 

metal baseball bat was used in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury. (People v. 

Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 1029.) 

Relying on People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078 (Beasley),

Parker asserts the bruising on L.H.’s legs is insufficient by itself to prove Parker used the 

metal baseball bat in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily injury. But Beasley 

is readily distinguishable from the instant matter. In Beasley, the defendant was 

convicted of assault with a deadly weapon after he hit the victim’s arms and shoulders 

with a broomstick and caused bruising in those areas. (Id. at p. 1087.) The victim’s 

testimony was “cursory,” and she did not describe the degree of force the defendant used 

when hitting her with the broomstick. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal held the evidence was 

insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction because the record did not indicate the 

composition of the broomstick, whether it “was solid wood or a hollow tube made of 

metal, fiberglass, or plastic” (ibid.), and evidence concerning the “composition, weight, 

and rigidity [of the broomstick] would necessarily affect the probability and likelihood 

that it could cause great bodily injury” (id. at pp. 1087-1088). The Court of Appeal 

concluded that without this evidence, the jury could not assess the degree of force the 

defendant used when hitting the victim with the broomstick. (Id. at p. 1088.) The 

Beasley court also found the evidence of the victim’s injuries was insufficient to prove 

the defendant used the broomstick as a deadly weapon because her bruises were not 

“extensive” or “severe.” (Ibid.)
8

Here, in contrast, the evidence established Parker used a metal baseball bat 

to strike L.H.’s legs multiple times. A baseball bat is capable of producing death or great 

bodily injury. (See People v. Moye (2009) 47 Cal.4th 537, 540 [defendant bludgeoned 

victim to death with baseball bat]; People v. Loeun (1997) 17 Cal.4th 1, 6-7 [defendant 

convicted of assault with deadly weapon for hitting victim in head and on shoulder and 

arm with baseball bat].) Thus, the nature of the object Parker used was substantially 

different from the undescribed broomstick in Beasley. 

Additionally, the injuries L.H. suffered to her legs are more substantial than 

those described in Beasley and can be characterized as “extensive” and “severe.” 

(Beasley, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088.) Parker points to the court’s not true finding 

on the great bodily injury enhancement and asserts the evidence of L.H.’s injuries was 

insufficient to prove she actually used the metal bat in manner likely to cause death or 

great bodily injury. But this logic is flawed. “‘[A] conviction for assault with a deadly 

weapon does not require proof of an injury or even physical contact’ [citation] . . . .” 

(B.M., supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 535.) Thus, the court’s not true finding on the great bodily 

injury enhancement does not mean the metal baseball bat was not used in a manner likely

to produce serious bodily injury. Based on the nature of the object, a metal baseball bat, 

and the injuries to L.H.’s legs, the court could reasonably infer Parker used the bat in a

manner that was both capable of producing and likely to produce great bodily injury. 

Accordingly, the evidence supports Parker’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon

in count 5.
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

MOTOIKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

DELANEY, J.