34 Cal.App.5th 455
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Bomatamunopiri A. Bipialaka, after using methamphetamine and drinking, wore a makeshift hooded mask and drove erratically while fleeing a deputy sheriff.
- During the high-speed pursuit he ran a red light and deliberately aimed his car at another vehicle in an intersection, yelling and trying to "freak them out;" he swerved at the last moment and avoided a collision.
- Police cancelled the chase; Bipialaka was charged and convicted of four counts: assault on a police officer, reckless evading (Veh. Code § 2800.2), and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (use of a car) against the occupants of the targeted vehicle.
- On appeal Bipialaka challenged only the two assault-with-a-deadly-weapon convictions as unsupported by sufficient evidence; he also sought review of Pitchess in camera proceedings and requested correction of clerical errors in the abstract of judgment.
- The parties agreed the abstract contained errors as to presentence credits and restitution fines; Bipialaka additionally asked for remand under SB 1393 to permit the trial court to consider striking a five‑year prior serious-felony enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for assault with a deadly weapon (car) | Evidence showed purposeful conduct aimed to frighten victims; a car can be a deadly weapon and the act would probably and directly result in application of force | Driving through a red light while fleeing was reckless but not an attempt to apply force; swerve shows no intent to injure | Affirmed: under People v. Williams the defendant's purposeful aiming at the car while masked created an imminent threatened application of force—satisfies assault test |
| Trial court Pitchess in camera review (first motion) | Trial court properly conducted sealed in camera review and found no discoverable personnel records | Defendant sought disclosure of a deputy's personnel records for fabrication/false reports | Affirmed: court followed Pitchess procedures and did not abuse discretion |
| Denial of second Pitchess motion (additional deputies) | Defendant argued deputies fabricated testimony about donuts and waving a knife/object and sought personnel records | Defendant failed to show good cause or link the requested records to defenses to the charged counts (assaults and evading) | Affirmed: motion lacked required showing of how records would support a defense or impeach critical testimony |
| Remand for resentencing under SB 1393 and clerical corrections | SB 1393 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases and trial court should have discretion to strike prior serious-felony enhancement; abstract contains clerical errors requiring amendment | Court should remand to allow sentencing court to exercise discretion and correct the abstract | Remanded for resentencing so trial court may consider striking the five-year enhancement; directed amendment of abstract (credits under §4019; $1,000 restitution and $1,000 suspended parole‑revocation fine) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (clarified mental state for assault; test whether act would directly, naturally, and probably result in application of force)
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (discussing vehicles as weapons in assault jurisprudence)
- People v. Mortensen, 210 Cal.App.2d 575 (vehicle-as-deadly-weapon authority)
- People v. Aznavoleh, 210 Cal.App.4th 1181 (assault need not include intent to cause actual application of force)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (procedural guidance on Pitchess hearings and recordkeeping)
- People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206 (assault intent issues and historical treatment)