People v. Loya CA4/2, E074881

Neighbors S.W. and M.W. lived behind defendant Daniel Loya; a 6–6.5 foot block wall and security cameras separated the properties.
On June 18, 2017, Loya hit the camera pole with a hatchet, admitted doing so, and yelled, “I’m going to chop your F’ing head off.”
Loya raised a hatchet over his head and ran toward S.W. and M.W.; the victims ducked behind the wall, fled inside and called police.
Security camera stills and a dent in the pole corroborated the incident; police recovered the hatchet in Loya’s house.
Jury convicted Loya of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)) and two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422); he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms (three years principal).
On appeal Loya challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence on the assault convictions (present ability to injure) and (2) the trial court’s refusal to stay the criminal‑threat sentences under section 654.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault (§ 245(a)(1)) — "present ability" element	Evidence (victims’ fear, hatchet raised while charging, dent in pole, camera images, prior violence) shows Loya had means/location to strike immediately.	Victims were separated by a high wall; Loya was ~10–15 feet away and did not climb the wall, so he lacked present ability.	Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports present ability: running at victims with hatchet raised, damage above the wall, victims’ reasonable belief he could reach them.
Whether § 654 required staying sentences for criminal threats (§ 422)	The threats and assaults were separate acts with separate objectives; punishment for both is proper.	The threats and assaults were one indivisible course of conduct with a single objective (to scare), so additional punishment must be stayed.	Affirmed. The crimes were temporally and factually separable (threat, pause, return and charge), allowing multiple punishment.

People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (2000) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence).
People v. Chance, 44 Cal.4th 1164 (2008) (explains "present ability" and that "immediately" does not require instantaneous contact).
People v. Valdez, 175 Cal.App.3d 103 (1985) (present ability focuses on defendant's means/proximity; victim's avoidance doesn't negate ability).
People v. Nguyen, 12 Cal.App.5th 44 (2017) (10–15 foot distance is a factual question for the jury on present ability).
In re James M., 9 Cal.3d 517 (1973) (discussed and distinguished regarding attempted assault principles).
People v. Hicks, 6 Cal.4th 784 (1993) (section 654 analysis depends on defendant's intent and objective).
Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (1960) (course‑of‑conduct divisibility depends on intent/objective).
People v. Gaio, 81 Cal.App.4th 919 (2000) (temporal separation can permit multiple punishments).