Court Opinion

ID: 9384384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 18:04:17.387857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.114669
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/3/23 P. v. Dyess CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                            THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    (Sacramento)
                                         ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C096342

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 21FE015539)

           v.

    SIRMICHAEL DYESS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury found defendant Sirmichael Dyess1 guilty of assault with a deadly weapon
and battery. The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in prison. Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case
and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

1       Defendant’s name is inconsistent throughout the record. The notice of appeal and
felony complaint deemed information list defendant’s name as “Sirmichael Alexander
Dyess,” while the abstract of judgment lists “Sirmichael Dyess.” We use the latter name
in this appeal.

                                                             1
       Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising several issues. He contends the
evidence is insufficient to prove he committed assault with a deadly weapon, battery, or
inflicted great bodily injury; or to prove the absence of self-defense. Defendant argues
the trial court erred when it did not provide him with a new attorney when he asked that
his existing public defender be removed. Finally, defendant also argues the prosecutor
committed prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court committed judicial misconduct by
allowing this to happen. We affirm.
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                                              I
                                           Pretrial
       Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon—a cobblestone or
rock2 ⸺and battery on the victim. It also alleged an enhancement that defendant
personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim as to count one. As to count two,
the information further alleged the enhancements the victim was not an accomplice and
that defendant personally inflicted serious bodily injury on the victim. The information
alleged four separate circumstances in aggravation.
       Prior to trial, defendant’s counsel told the court defendant wanted a different
attorney. In response, the trial court held an in camera hearing pursuant to People v.
Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. At that hearing, defendant argued his attorney did not
utilize his mental health disabilities as a defense in his case; was on bad terms with his
family; had not provided him with discovery quickly enough; had not told him of any
types of plea agreements (although he mentioned counsel told him alternatively his
exposure was either 45 years to life in prison or 12 years); and moved for a speedy trial

2       Despite the differing characterizations of the item used by defendant to hit the
victim in the head (“cobble,” “cobblestone,” or “rock”), for clarity, we will refer to this as
a rock.

                                              2
that he did not request. Defendant further argued that he was confused about the
maximum sentence he faced. In response to questioning from the trial court, counsel set
forth his 16 years of legal experience on the record and stated he had a disagreement with
defendant’s father, but he had a good relationship with defendant’s mother, with whom
he communicated with regularly. As far as discovery, he provided it when defendant
requested it. Counsel shared he had not told defendant he was exposed to 45 years to life
in prison, although the crimes originally charged included attempted murder. Counsel
stated the case was set for trial within 60 days after the preliminary examination and
defendant had suggested arguments counsel chose not to pursue. Defense counsel was
prepared to try the case. The trial court denied this motion.
                                             II
                                            Trial
                                             A
                                     C.B.’s Testimony
       On the night of the incident, C.B. went to a bar around 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m.,
hung out with a friend, and watched sports. After he drank five or six alcoholic
beverages, he left the bar for home via light rail. He did not remember anything that
happened after he left the bar, including defendant assaulting him.
       The next thing C.B. remembered was waking up at the hospital. His head and leg
hurt, and his knee was swollen. C.B. identified photographs depicting his injuries and
testified he suffered a broken nose, broken orbital bones, and a subdural hematoma.
C.B.’s treating radiologist testified C.B. had an intercranial bleed on his brain from a
trauma. C.B. also had soft tissue swelling and multiple fractures of his right orbital
bones, nasal bones, and anterior maxilla bone.
       At trial, the victim, C.B. denied knowing defendant, having any prior arguments or
physical altercations with him, or having any gambling debts.

                                              3
                                              B
                                       Video Evidence
       The prosecution presented the jury with videos of the assault and photographs
taken that night.
       While the videos did not show the entire altercation between defendant and C.B.,
the videos show defendant’s arrival at the light rail station, some of the interactions
between defendant and C.B., and defendant fleeing from the scene of the crime. One
video shows defendant and C.B. interacting just prior to the time defendant threw the
victim to the ground. Defendant walks in front of C.B., who appears to be trying to avoid
defendant. While there is no sound, C.B. makes no aggressive movements towards
defendant nor does he appear to say anything. At this point, the video shows C.B. had no
cuts or bruises to his face or head.
       A second video shows the altercation from another camera angle, but much of the
assault is blocked by a large tree. This video shows defendant arriving at the station.
After the train arrives, the video shows C.B.’s head hit the ground and defendant
stomping on him with his feet. The video also shows the three women, whose testimony
we will describe, post, arrive just prior to the assault at a vantage point from which they
had a clear view of the altercation. Finally, the video shows defendant leaving the assault
approximately two minutes after he arrived.
       Two other videos show C.B. lying on the ground in a pool of blood, bleeding from
his head.
                                              C
                                        Eyewitnesses
       On the evening of the assault, J.B. and two of her friends were riding scooters in
downtown. J.B. saw an altercation from about 20 feet away between a bald man with no
shirt and another man. When she arrived on the scene, the bald man was shouting at the
other man in an aggressive tone. J.B. saw the bald man punch the other man in the face

                                              4
and push him to the floor. Then, she saw the bald man beat up the victim, stomp on him,
and hit him with a rock and punch him in the head. She saw the bald man hit the victim
in the face with the rock several times. J.B. did not see the victim defend himself or
punch or kick the attacker at any time. She and her friends turned away and crossed to
the other side of the street, and she called 911. As the bald man ran from the scene, J.B.
testified she saw him picking up more rocks and throwing them at cars. She did not
identify defendant as the assailant at trial.
       J.B.’s friend, T.M., testified she saw defendant and another man involved in an
altercation. She saw defendant push the other man off the light rail car, stomp the
victim’s face into the concrete, and punch him in the face. She did not see the victim
defend himself, push, punch, or kick defendant prior to being thrown to the ground. She
did not see a rock in defendant’s hand. But, she heard defendant throwing rocks at
windshields of cars as he left the scene.
       The third member of the scooter-riding trio, J.M., also testified. J.M. saw the
victim fall to the ground from the light rail car. The attacker punched the victim in the
face, stomped on his face, and grabbed an object and hit the victim in the face with it.
She did not know what the object was. She did not see the victim punch the attacker,
kick him, or fight back. She saw the attacker punch a truck, throw a rock at it, and then
run off. She did not recognize defendant in the courtroom as the attacker.
                                                D
                        Police Encounter and Defendant’s Statement
       The next day, officers detained defendant. The prosecution played the video of
defendant answering a detective’s questions. In that video, defendant said he had known
the victim for a couple months and was involved in a fight with him the prior night over a
gambling debt. While defendant did not know the victim’s name, defendant claimed to
have recently spent an evening gambling, drinking, and smoking with the victim.
Defendant also claimed C.B. and a friend had previously assaulted him.

                                                5
       Defendant said C.B. owed him money and when he asked for it, C.B. told him he
would not pay him and tried to walk around defendant. Defendant said he responded by
punching C.B. in the chin and when he fell down, defendant kicked him in the face and
neck three or four times. Defendant then stomped C.B. and claimed to have hit C.B. in
the leg with a rock. Defendant specifically denied hitting C.B. in the head with the rock.
Defendant claimed to have thrown the rock away after the assault. The detective was
unable to find a rock at the scene of the crime the next day.
                                              E
                                   Defendant’s Testimony
       Defendant testified on his own behalf. He showed the jury photographs of C.B. in
the hospital after the wounds on his face were cleaned and asserted the wounds were
healed at that time. He also played the prosecution’s surveillance video of the incident.
He narrated the video asserting after C.B. was on the ground , no one came off the train.
He narrated his interpretation of the video as showing the kicks to C.B.’s head were from
only six to seven inches off the ground and nothing on the video showed a “rock being hit
in [sic] someone’s head.” Defendant also showed other videos where he claims C.B.’s
head moved several times after the altercation demonstrating he did not lose
consciousness from the assault, but rather was under the influence of the alcohol he drank
that night. He also noted several people walked by and did not offer to help C.B.
       On cross-examination, defendant asserted C.B. owed him a gambling debt, but he
“prefer[red] not to go into detail” about it. He also repeatedly testified he did not
remember the incident and the only things he knew about that night were what he saw on
the videos presented in court. He did not remember stomping on C.B.’s head or running
away from the scene. Defendant agreed he made a statement to the police, but did not
presently recall that he gave the statement or any of the specific admissions he made in
that statement. For example, he did not recall he told the detective he hit C.B. with a
rock. He did not recall a prior incident where he claimed the victim, C.B., and his friend,

                                              6
assaulted defendant. Defendant repeated his opinion no one saw a rock that evening or
anyone being hit with one. Further, he postulated he did not know whether C.B. had a
black eye or bruised knee before the altercation. Because part of the action happened
behind a tree, defendant testified C.B. “could have spit on [him] and beat [him] up. It
could have been self-defense.” When asked if this was his defense, defendant said,
“[T]hat’s potentially what it is to me. Based off these statements that you say I gave, I
was high. I don’t know. I don’t recall anything. I just don’t.”
                                             F
                                    Verdict and Sentence
       The jury found defendant guilty on both counts and found the enhancements and
all pled circumstances in aggravation true. The trial court heard and denied defendant’s
multiple posttrial motions.
       The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years for assault with
a deadly weapon and a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury
enhancement. Pursuant to Penal Code3 section 654, the trial court stayed the sentence on
battery and its enhancement.
       Defendant timely appealed.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s supplemental brief challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his
convictions, argues the trial court erred when it failed to provide him with a new attorney,
and contends he should have been granted a new trial based on prosecutorial and judicial
misconduct. We disagree.

3      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             7
                                               I
                                 Sufficiency of the Evidence
       Defendant asserts the evidence is insufficient to prove he committed the crime of
assault with a deadly weapon because the rock he used was not shown on the video or
found later. He also argues there is insufficient evidence to prove he inflicted great
bodily injury on the victim. He further argues there is no evidence he committed the
crime of battery on C.B. He further argues there is no substantial evidence he did not
engage in self-defense, arguing he responded to C.B. spitting on him and calling him the
“N”-word. We reject these arguments.
       “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine
the facts ourselves. Rather, we ‘examine the whole record in the light most favorable to
the judgment 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.] We presume in support of the
judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the
evidence.” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.) “ ‘Although we must
ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the
exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and
the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends. [Citation.] Thus, if
the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier
of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness’s credibility for that of the fact
finder.’ ” (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)
       The trial court instructed the jury as follows: “To prove that the defendant is
guilty of [the] crime [of assault with a deadly weapon], the People must prove that [(1)]
the defendant did an act with a deadly weapon other than a firearm that by its nature
would directly and probably result in the application of force to [the victim]; [(2)] the
defendant did that act willfully; [(3)] when the defendant acted, he was aware of facts that

                                               8
would lead a reasonable person to realize that his act by its nature would directly and
probably result in the application of force to someone; [(4)] when the defendant acted, he
had the present ability to apply force with a deadly weapon other than a firearm to [the
victim]; and [(5)] the defendant did not act in self-defense.” (CALCRIM No. 875.)
        Defendant argues he did not assault C.B. with a deadly weapon because the act of
hitting C.B. in the face with a rock is not shown on camera and no one found the rock.
He suggests the weapon “was never proven to be more th[a]n a balled up hat.” We reject
this argument as the overwhelming evidence was defendant used a rock to hit C.B. in the
head.
        First, defendant told the detective that he used a rock or some other object to hit
C.B and that he threw it away. Second, one witness testified she saw defendant hit C.B.
in the head with a rock several times. A second witness said she saw defendant grab an
object from under the light rail and hit C.B. in the face with it. Third, all three witnesses
saw or heard defendant throwing rocks at cars as he left the scene. This is substantial
evidence he used a rock or some other object to assault C.B.
        We reject defendant’s repeated arguments the witnesses who saw him hit C.B.
with a rock were not credible. Where “disputed questions of fact were thus presented, . . .
it was solely within the province of the jury to determine as to the credibility of the
witnesses, and as to the truth or falsity of the evidence.” (People v. Barton (1925)
72 Cal.App. 421, 423.) We will not disturb their conclusions on appeal.
        We further reject defendant’s argument there is not substantial evidence defendant
did not act in self-defense.
        In order to have the right to engage in self-defense, defendant must have
reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury or was in
imminent danger of being touched unlawfully and must have reasonably believed the
immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger. (CALCRIM
No. 3470.) The jury was properly instructed on this defense.

                                              9
       Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding defendant did not act in self-
defense. Defendant’s own words demonstrate he was not acting in self-defense when he
punched C.B. His first comment to the detective was this was “merely” a fight between
two men. Then he told the detective, the victim told defendant he would not pay and
tried to walk around defendant, so defendant responded by punching, kicking, and
striking him with a rock. Defendant’s own words are substantial evidence he was not
acting in self-defense and he did not actually or reasonably believe he was in imminent
danger of anything, or that force was necessary to defend against that danger.
       Further, eyewitnesses stated they observed the altercation between the two men.
They saw defendant hit C.B. They did not see C.B. hit defendant, kick defendant, or
otherwise act aggressively towards him. Finally, the video of their interaction shows
defendant as the aggressor and indicates C.B. was trying to avoid and get away from him.
Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding defendant did not have the right to nor
did he engage in self-defense.
       Defendant repeatedly contends C.B. spit on him and called him the “N-word”
immediately before defendant defended himself and thus, the prosecutor failed to prove
he was not acting in self-defense when he assaulted C.B. There was no evidence
admitted at trial supporting this theory. For his part, C.B. did not remember what
happened after he left the bar. Similarly, defendant repeatedly testified he did not recall
what happened. Defendant’s supposition, imagination, or speculation given on cross-
examination, after having repeatedly stated he remembered nothing of that night other
than what was caught on camera, does not rise to the level of evidence that might support
this argument. (People v. Grant (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 323, 330.)
       Defendant argues there was no evidence he inflicted great bodily injury on C.B.
and postulates C.B. may have had the injuries prior to the assault, or sustained them at the
hands of the police after the altercation. We disagree.

                                             10
         “Great bodily injury is bodily injury [that] is significant or substantial; not
insignificant, trivial or moderate.” (People v. Armstrong (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1060,
1066.)
         Here, C.B. testified the assault left him with a broken nose, broken orbital bones,
and a subdural hematoma. His treating radiologist testified C.B. had an intercranial bleed
on his brain from a trauma, soft tissue swelling, and multiple fractures of his right orbital
bones, nasal bones, and anterior maxilla bone. The prosecution also showed the jury
photographs of the victim’s injuries.
         Further, the video evidence shows C.B’s face and head were unmarked and
without injury just prior to the encounter. Immediately after the encounter, the video and
photographic evidence show C.B. on the ground, unconscious, and bleeding profusely
from his head. The testimony, video, and photographs provide substantial evidence
defendant inflicted great bodily injury on C.B.
         Defendant also argues there is no evidence he assaulted defendant. As relevant
here, the elements of assault as provided to the jury are: (1) “[T]he defendant willfully
and unlawfully touched [the victim] in a harmful or offensive manner; [(2) the victim]
suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the force used; and [(3) t]he defendant did not
act in self-defense.” (CALCRIM No. 925.)
         As noted ante, the evidence on this point is overwhelming. Defendant admitted to
hitting the victim in the face, stomping him with his foot, and hitting him with a rock.
The video surveillance shows defendant stomping on the victim. The three eyewitnesses
all testified defendant punched and kicked C.B. This is substantial evidence of assault.
                                                II
                                        Marsden Motion
         Defendant argues he was not given a new attorney after he asked for his prior
attorney to be removed. Defendant was not entitled to a new attorney.

                                                11
        “The law governing this area is well settled. ‘When a defendant seeks to
discharge his appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, and asserts inadequate
representation, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis of his
contention and to relate specific instances of the attorney’s inadequate performance.
[Citation.] A defendant is entitled to relief if the record clearly shows that the first
appointed attorney is not providing adequate representation [citation] or that defendant
and counsel have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective
representation is likely to result [citations].’ ” (People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173,
204.)
        We review the trial court’s denial of a Marsden motion for an abuse of discretion.
(People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 230.) The court may properly deny the motion
if the defendant, having been accorded the opportunity to speak, offers no hint of any
factual grounds or reasons to support the request for new counsel. (People v. Culton
(1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 113, 116.) “Denial is not an abuse of discretion ‘unless the
defendant has shown that a failure to replace counsel would substantially impair the
defendant’s right to assistance of counsel.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Taylor (2010)
48 Cal.4th 574, 599.) To the extent there may be a credibility question between
defendant and counsel at the Marsden hearing, the court is entitled to accept counsel’s
explanation. (People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696.)
        Here, the record demonstrates defendant asked for new counsel and expressed
dissatisfaction with his current attorney. The trial court held an in camera hearing on the
issues raised by defendant: His attorney had a conflict with his family; did not
adequately explain things to him; failed to properly represent him; and failed to present a
defense based on his mental health issues. The trial court found counsel was experienced
and trying his best to handle the case, and carefully considered and appropriately declined
to pursue the mental health as a defense. The trial court noted counsel was not required
to get along with defendant’s father and acknowledged it is sometimes difficult to

                                              12
calculate the correct legal exposure. We have examined that transcript and conclude the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding defendant did not show either his
counsel was engaged in inadequate representation or there was an irreconcilable conflict.
The trial court properly denied this motion.
                                               III
                            Prosecutorial/Judicial Misconduct
       Defendant argues the prosecutor argued her opinions to the jury that were contrary
to the evidence and the trial judge committed misconduct by allowing this. We disagree.
       “A prosecutor’s conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution when it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a
denial of due process. Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial
fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves the
use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the trial court or
the jury. Furthermore, and particularly pertinent here, when the claim focuses upon
comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained -of remarks
in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 44.) “At closing
argument a party is entitled both to discuss the evidence and to comment on reasonable
inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” (Ibid.)
       We have examined the prosecutor’s closing argument. We conclude the
arguments the prosecutor made were supported by the evidence admitted at trial and the
law. Thus, there was no pattern of egregious conduct that infected the trial with
unfairness. Defendant’s disagreement with these arguments does not render those
statements prosecutorial misconduct. Because there was no prosecutorial misconduct, the
trial court did not engage in judicial misconduct in allowing the prosecutor’s arguments.

                                               13
                                              IV
                                       Wende Review
       In addition to the specific arguments noted above, defendant raised generic points
in his supplemental brief: He believes his trial was unfair; he should have been convicted
of a lesser offense; counsel did not explain the trial to him; and his various posttrial
motions should have been granted. We have undertaken an examination of the entire
record pursuant to Wende, and we find no arguable errors that are favorable to
defendant.4
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                   /s/
                                                   ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
MAURO, J.

/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

4     Defendant also asserts he has been assaulted while in custody. To the extent
defendant challenges the conditions of his current confinement, he must proceed via the
appropriate filing in the Sacramento County Superior Court. These issues are not
cognizable in this criminal appeal.

                                              14