Opinion ID: 2832196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Events and Convictions at Issue1

Text: Creech and his wife, Reanna, have a four-year-old daughter, Sofia, and a three-year-old son, Zachary.2 One evening in September 2007, Creech and Reanna had an argument because Creech told Reanna he had obtained a shotgun. Reanna decided to leave him that night. A few weeks later, she took the kids to her father’s house in Napa. Several days later, Creech and Reanna spoke on the phone. She told him the kids were at her father’s and suggested that they talk another time to arrange for Creech to see them. Later that night, Creech went to Reanna’s father’s house and asked him if he could see the children. Creech’s fatherin-law said “no.” When Reanna returned to her father’s home later that night, she saw Creech waiting there and drove away. He followed her. A highway patrol officer stopped Reanna for “driving 15 miles an hour in a 45.” Reanna, who had been crying, explained to the officer the circumstances with Creech and their kids. At the time she was pulled over, Reanna was on the phone with the sheriff’s department. Creech had contacted the police department and explained that he was trying to get in contact with his children, and that he had been “threatened off [his father-in-law’s] property.” The patrol officer told Reanna that, because Creech was the only custodial parent at her father’s house, she had to go back 1 The factual background is drawn from the testimony given at trial. 2 To avoid confusion, we refer to members of Creech’s family by their first names. CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM 5 to her father’s, otherwise Creech would be allowed to take the children. Reanna decided to return to her father’s house. Creech testified at trial that he was angry with his fatherin-law for not allowing him to see his children. So, he decided to return the following morning to shoot at and damage his house. He grabbed bird shot ammunition because “shooting through things. . . wasn’t [his] intent.” Late that morning, Reanna, who was at her father’s house, heard a “solid thud.” She looked outside and saw Creech holding a shotgun about fifteen to twenty feet away from the house. Reanna shouted to her stepsister, Jennifer Curry, to grab Sofia. Jennifer saw glass flying everywhere. Jennifer also looked out of a window and saw Creech standing about fifteen to thirty feet away, aiming his shotgun and tracking her and Sofia with the barrel of the gun. Reanna grabbed Zachary and went to the downstairs bathroom, and Jennifer and Sofia joined them. Juliane Rush, Reanna’s stepmother, heard a “very loud pop” from the front of the house. She saw Creech standing about fifteen feet away from the front door. Creech’s account of the shooting differed in material respects. He testified at trial that, when he arrived at his father-in-law’s house, the gate was locked, which he thought meant nobody was home. He did not see any cars that he recognized, but he did see an SUV and a silver Jetta. He did not hear or see anyone inside the house. He testified that he was forty or fifty feet away from the house while he was shooting. Creech did not see or hear anything while he was shooting. Creech testified that he has “horrible” vision, and that he did not wear his glasses that day. After the shooting, he went to his parents’ house, ingested a bottle of pills, and was taken to the hospital. 6 CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM Officers arrived at the Napa house minutes after the shooting, but Creech had left. They found three shells in front of the house. There were many very small perforations in the front door, and the outer pane of the double-paned window in the upper portion of the door was broken. Both layers of a double-paned window in the study were also broken. Creech was tried and convicted in Napa County Superior Court of multiple counts of assault with a firearm, Cal. Penal Code § 245(a), shooting at an inhabited dwelling, Cal. Penal Code § 246, and felony child endangerment, Cal. Penal Code § 273a(a). A forensic expert, Dr. John Thornton testified at trial. Among other tests, he performed ballistic gelatin testing “to mimic the behavior expected from human flesh . . . if a human body was shot with that projectile.” He performed these tests “without glass at a distance of 45 feet . . . [his] best approximation of the distance between the cluster of shotgun shells in front of the door and the door.” From this test, he opined that “there would be a minimum of an inch and a half of penetration into flesh.” With dual-paned glass, no pellets permeated the gel from 45 feet. Dr. Thornton did not perform tests at any other distance. In addition to the gelatin testing results, Dr. Thornton also stated other opinions based on the location of the shell casings and particle dispersion. First, he opined that the shots to the door were fired from between forty and fifty feet away, while the shot to the window was fired from twenty feet away. Second, he opined that there were lead pellets in the debris collected from the study. Third, he explained that the CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM 7 bullet “we’re speaking of is on the small side. It’s intended for small birds.” Dr. Norris, a forensic science consultant, also testified at trial. He estimated that Creech shot the door and the window from the same distance, about fifty feet away at all times. Ultimately, the jury convicted Creech of multiple counts of assault with a firearm, child endangerment, and shooting at an inhabited dwelling, with firearm use enhancements, Cal. Penal Code § 12022.5.3 At the sentencing hearing in July 2008, the trial court explained that, in determining prison time, it was required to “select[] [among] the upper, middle or lower term” available. It stated that it must “exercise its discretion” and “consider circumstances in aggravation and mitigation when making that decision.” The court found “numerous circumstances in aggravation,” including “threat of great bodily harm and a high degree of cruelty and callousness,” particularly vulnerable victims, “planning and sophistication,” and “violent conduct.” Further, the trial court found very few mitigating circumstances, although it did find satisfactory probation performance and a limited prior criminal record. The court, in exercising its discretion, imposed the upper term on the child endangerment and assault with a firearm convictions.4 After applying statutory enhancements for use of a firearm and determining that the 3 Creech’s convictions for shooting at an inhabited dwelling are not at issue here. 4 The court classified the child endangerment charge as to Sofia as the principal count of conviction, and all the other counts of conviction as subordinate. See People v. Neely, 176 Cal. App. 4th 787, 797–98 (2009) (explaining the sentencing protocol for multiple offenses with determinate terms under California Penal Code section 1170.1). 8 CREECH V. FRAUENHEIM sentence for several counts should be served consecutively and others concurrently, the court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-one years and four months.