People v. Gaoa CA5
F078199
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2021Background
- June 26, 2015: Senter John Gaoa returned drunk to the shared home of his girlfriend, Phyllis R.; an altercation followed in which Phyllis sustained a black eye and other injuries and her vehicle and planters were damaged.
- Charges: felony corporal injury on a cohabitant (§ 273.5) (count 1) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594) (count 2). The information also alleged six prior serious/strike convictions.
- Trial: defense proceeded on a self‑defense theory and sought to call Dr. John Hamel to testify about intimate partner battering; the trial court excluded the expert as irrelevant because defendant never testified he feared imminent harm; defense asked to recall defendant to supply foundation—request denied.
- Verdict and sentencing: jury convicted on both counts; prior serious felony findings were true; court struck two duplicative convictions, denied probation, and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life under Three Strikes; various fines and fees were imposed.
- Appeal issues: exclusion of intimate‑partner‑battering expert and denial of mistrial; denial to recall defendant; ineffective assistance claim; CALCRIM No. 362 (consciousness of guilt) vs. voluntary intoxication instruction; denial of Romero strike relief; ability‑to‑pay hearing for fines (Dueñas); omission of mandatory assessments and restitution; vacatur of certain fees under AB 1869.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of intimate‑partner‑battering expert / mistrial | Expert irrelevant because no evidence defendant believed he was in imminent danger; exclusion proper. | Expert was necessary to explain battered‑person perceptions and support self‑defense; exclusion deprived defendant of a complete defense. | Court: Exclusion proper. No substantial evidence showed defendant actually feared imminent harm that morning; expert testimony would have invited speculation. Denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. |
| 2. Denial to recall defendant to supplement testimony | Not argued by People. | Counsel sought to recall defendant to lay foundation for expert; denial prevented necessary foundation. | Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion—defendant had ample opportunity to testify and reopen was not warranted. |
| 3. Ineffective assistance for failing to elicit fear/imminence testimony | Not argued by People on direct appeal. | Trial counsel unreasonably failed to elicit testimony needed to admit expert and prejudiced defendant. | Court: Record insufficient to evaluate ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal; remand/habeas would be the proper vehicle. |
| 4. CALCRIM No. 362 (false statements → consciousness of guilt) | Instruction supported: defendant denied entering house yet other evidence placed him inside; jury could infer consciousness of guilt. | Intoxication negated intent to deceive; court should have sua sponte instructed regarding voluntary intoxication’s effect on intent. | Court: CALCRIM No. 362 was supported by evidence and properly given. No sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary intoxication absent request; any error was harmless. |
| 5. Romero / strike‑striking decision | Strike priors should be struck due to age, mitigation, and limited similarity; leniency warranted. | Priors and instant offense involve violence against women and show defendant remains within Three Strikes’ spirit. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion. It balanced factors and reasonably declined to strike most priors. |
| 6. Ability‑to‑pay hearing for fines (Dueñas) | Under Dueñas, court must determine ability to pay before imposing certain fines/fees; remand required. | People initially conceded remand but argued Eighth Amendment review for punishment; court distinguishes Dueñas facts. | Court: Declined to extend Dueñas here. On this record the defendant can likely pay (prison wages/future earnings); any error was harmless. No remand. |
| 7. Mandatory assessments and restitution; AB 1869 fees | People: trial court omitted some mandatory assessments and failed to order restitution fines and victim restitution—remand needed to correct. | Defendant: some fines/fees unlawful or waived; AB 1869 renders certain fees unenforceable. | Court: Ordered modification to add mandatory assessments for count 2 and to impose direct victim restitution (amount to be determined by probation or via §1202.46 proceedings). The restitution fine was forfeited by People. Vacated any unpaid balance of the former §1203.1b presentence fee and former Gov. Code §29550.2 booking fee per AB 1869. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (Sup. Ct.) (intimate partner battering evidence relevant to subjective and objective elements of self‑defense)
- People v. Minifie, 13 Cal.4th 1055 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant must prove own frame of mind for self‑defense; corroboration permitted)
- In re Walker, 147 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App.) (expert testimony on battered‑partner perceptions admissible where defendant’s testimony supports fear/imminence)
- People v. Simon, 1 Cal.5th 98 (Sup. Ct.) (no substantial evidence of honest belief → no instruction on imperfect self‑defense)
- People v. Aris, 215 Cal.App.3d 1178 (Cal. Ct. App.) (sleeping victim facts make imminence insufficient; expert testimony would not change result)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App.) (ability‑to‑pay hearing required in limited circumstances; case relied on by defendant)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for exercising discretion to strike prior convictions under §1385 in Three Strikes context)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Sup. Ct.) (deferential review of strike‑striking decisions; Three Strikes norms)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Sup. Ct.) (harmless‑error standard)
- People v. Tillman, 22 Cal.4th 300 (Sup. Ct.) (People forfeit appellate challenge to omission of restitution fine if not raised at sentencing)