P. v. Goodman
Filed 10/19/07 P. v. Goodman CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD DUVALL GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | E042920 (Super.Ct.No. FBA008802) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Vander Feer, Judge. Affirmed
Jamie L. Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On March 23, 2007, pursuant to Penal code section 1192.7,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled nolo contendere to voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense ( 192, subd. (a)), and admitted the special allegations filed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for 14 years and awarded the appropriate custody credits.
Statement of FActs
The body of the victim was found by paramedics in her home on the morning of September 20, 2005. At the time of her death, the victim was a quadriplegic because of a traffic accident several years earlier. The victims doctor had last seen her a week prior to her death. At that time the victim left the hospital in her normal health after treatment for abdominal pain. Sheriffs deputies initially concluded no signs of struggle or foul play existed.
A doctor who performed an autopsy on the victim found bruising on her head, arms, and legs, as well as petechial hemorrhage (bleeding from blood vessels) in both eyes, which indicated she had been asphyxiated. Detective Williams prepared a search warrant for her home after discussing the findings with the doctor.
While Detectives Dattillo and Medley were at the victims residence, defendant arrived at the home. The detectives stated they were investigating the victims death and defendant agreed to speak with them. Detective Williams arrived sometime thereafter to execute the search warrant.
Inside the home, Detective Williams found a hospital bed in the living room with a couch nearby with bedding on it. Detective Williams also found about 60 different kinds of medication, both over the counter and prescription; the prescription bottles had the victims name on them. Detective Williams did not know if medications he found could cause petechial hemorrhaging. Also, Detective Williams did not discuss with the autopsy doctor whether there was a possible cause of petechial hemorrhaging other than asphyxiation, such as medication, and did not discuss the medications found in the victims home with the doctor.
Defendant told the detectives that the victim was his girlfriend, and he was her sole caretaker. Detective Dattillo asked defendant what happened on September 20, and defendant replied that the victim had just returned from the hospital and was not doing well. He stated that she would not eat and was not ambulatory, but had limited movement in her arms. He also stated that he moved her from her wheelchair into her bed and he laid on the couch across from her. However, he did not go to sleep immediately. At one point, it was cold, so he put a sheet over her. Eventually, he fell asleep on the couch. He woke up at 4:59 a.m. and noticed the victims Foley bag was empty. When he checked on the victim, he realized she was deceased and called 911.
Detective Dattillo then asked defendant about the victims injuries. Defendant stated she had fallen out of bed a long time ago. When Detective Dattillo asked defendant what he meant by a long time ago or when was the last time the victim fell out of bed, defendant replied a couple days ago. At some point in their conversation, defendant stated that he had not immediately laid across from the victim on the couch but instead walked in and around the house for a few hours. During that time, defendant discovered that the victim had fallen onto the floor from her bed; she was alive when he found her on her face or on her back, but had a small laceration on her lip.
Detective Dattillo arrested the defendant after defendant made his statement. While in custody and after defendant was given his Miranda[2]rights, defendant gave an additional statement that he had left the house for several hours, and when he returned home, he discovered the victim banging her head on the ground with her face to the ground. Later, during the booking process, defendant stated he never should have discussed the case with Detective Dattillo because he helped him solve the case. At that time, defendant also stated he did it, but he didnt kill her.
While at the police station, defendant stated that a black male named Clifford Jones had come to the house the night the victim died and the two smoked cocaine together. Defendant asked Jones to leave because he made a pass at the victim and defendant believed he had left. Defendant remained in the yard at that point working on his vehicle. A couple of hours later when he went inside, he stated he found the victim dead and on the floor. He put her back on the bed, changed her stained shirt, and called 911. Defendant also stated that a friend of the victims had also come to their home, got into an argument with the victim over purchasing medication, jumped on top of her bed, and slapped and choked the victim. Defendant broke up the argument, and the friend left. The victim was still alive at that time according to the defendant.
Defendant also told the Detective that on September 18, 2007, he gave the victim a glass of Kool-Aid, which she said was warm and she hit it out of his hand. Defendant then backhanded her across the face and choked her. According to the victims doctor, the victim could raise her arms and hold things with the backs of her hands, but could not hit a person; the doctor did not state whether or not the victim could have pushed a cup away from her.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2]Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694].
