Filed 6/23/17 P. v. Andrus 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sutter)
----


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

COURTNEY STEPHEN ANDRUS,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082623

(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF142900 & CRF150806)



A jury convicted defendant Courtney Stephen Andrus of two counts: inflicting unjustifiable pain or mental suffering on a child, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) and willfully inflicting injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a child (§ 273d, subd (a)). On appeal, defendant contends insubstantial evidence supported both convictions.
We affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was the boyfriend of the victim’s mother. The two convictions arose from a beating some time before Thanksgiving 2014, when the victim was four years old. The trial included testimony from the victim, the victim’s brother, the victim’s grandmother, and an investigating deputy sheriff. Defendant also testified.
Trial Testimony
The Grandmother’s Testimony
The victim’s grandmother testified that she called the police on Thanksgiving 2014 after discovering marks and bruises on the victim. The victim looked like “he’d been run over by a car.”
When she asked the victim how he got the bruises, he initially did not tell her, though he eventually did.
The grandmother also testified that defendant was not at Thanksgiving dinner.
The Victim’s Testimony
The victim, who was five at the time of trial, testified defendant inflicted the marks on his body. Defendant would hit him with a belt on his bare bottom. The victim testified that defendant had beat him with the belt before as well. He said sometimes defendant would hit him “a little” and sometimes defendant would hit him “a lot.” He said “a lot” meant nine or 10 times. Defendant would leave marks when he hit him with the belt.
He testified that before Thanksgiving, defendant hit him with a belt. The belt was big and had a horse on it.
The Victim’s Brother’s Testimony
The victim’s brother, who was nine at the time of trial, testified defendant hit the victim with a belt. The brother had spent Thanksgiving at his grandmother’s house, along with the victim.
About two or three days before Thanksgiving, the brother heard defendant hitting the victim. The brother stood outside the room and heard sounds of the victim being hit along with the victim’s screams. Afterwards, the brother saw defendant walk out of the room holding a leather rodeo belt.
When asked at trial if he had asked the victim what happened, the brother responded, “It was such a normal thing that I kind of knew what happened.” The brother also recalled other instances of defendant hitting the victim.
He also testified, “[M]y mom did hit me a few times, but [defendant] did most of the beatings.” He recalled seeing his mother “Kung Fu kick” the victim. And he saw her hit the victim with a belt a couple of times. He also testified to an incident where the mother grabbed the victim and threw him out of the car and started hitting him with her hand.
The brother also testified that defendant was not at Thanksgiving dinner. But the week of Thanksgiving, defendant would come home about 10:00 p.m.
The Investigating Deputy’s Testimony
A deputy sheriff testified that he had examined the victim’s bruises on November 28, 2014, and based on the pattern of the bruises, he opined they were inflicted by a belt. The bruises wrapped around the victim’s leg in a diagonal pattern. The bruises were aging by the time the deputy saw them.
The deputy asked the mother if he could search the residence. The mother initially agreed, but later withdrew her consent. She told the deputy, she had called defendant, who told her not to allow the search. The mother then brought the deputy two belts, saying they were the only belts in the house. Neither belt matched the injuries’ patterns.
The mother told the deputy that for discipline she would make her children do timeouts or ground them. She attributed the victim’s bruising to falling on boards at daycare.
Defendant’s Testimony
Defendant testified he never spanked the victim with a belt leaving marks. Rather, the victim’s mother was “the punisher”—though defendant never saw her hit the victim with a belt. When he would object to the mother’s treatment of the kids, she would “wig out,” get in a big fight with him, and swing at him.
At Thanksgiving, defendant and the mother were not getting along well. The mother “wasn’t quite who she said she was.” She was using drugs and drinking. He also testified that he was away working the week prior to Thanksgiving and was not there for Thanksgiving.
On cross, however, defendant admitted owning cowboy belts, and at trial, he was wearing a belt with a cowboy belt buckle.
Verdict and Sentencing
The jury convicted defendant of inflicting unjustifiable pain or mental suffering on a child, under circumstances likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 273a, subd. (a)) and willfully inflicting injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a child (§ 273d, subd. (a)). The trial court placed him on four years’ probation.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence establishes that defendant was the person who inflicted the injuries. He argues: “it is not reasonable for a jury to conclude that [defendant] was responsible for the injuries of November[] 2014. Substantial testimony supports the conclusion it was the mother who inflicted the injuries.” He argues that he was out of town and not at Thanksgiving dinner. He points out the victim did not initially say how he got the injuries. Testimony indicated the mother often severely disciplined the children, including with a belt. And the marks on the victim were inconsistent with any belts he owned. We conclude substantial evidence supports the conviction.
In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) Substantial evidence is evidence that is credible, reasonable, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ibid.) We may not reassess witness credibility, and we are required to draw all inferences from the evidence that supports the jury’s verdict. (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1382.) And we must resolve all conflicts in the evidence in support of the jury’s determination. (People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 350.) In other words, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. (Rodriguez, at p. 11; People v. Clark (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 235, 241-242.)
Here, the record contains substantial evidence in support of the convictions. The victim testified that defendant beat him with a belt sometime before Thanksgiving. The victim’s brother corroborated that account, testifying he was outside the room when it happened, and the beating occurred two to three days before Thanksgiving. That testimony—which was also corroborated by other witnesses—is sufficient to support the judgment. (See People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 [“unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction”].)
Defendant’s testimony to the contrary was clearly rejected by the jury. And based upon the evidence in the record, rejecting defendant’s account was eminently reasonable. We may not reverse simply because there is conflicting evidence favoring defendant. (See People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 71 [on appeal, we do not resolve evidentiary conflicts or reevaluate witness credibility].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



MURRAY , J.



We concur:



RAYE , P. J.



BUTZ , J.