P. v. Crespo
Filed 3/10/06 P. v. Crespo CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS ERDULFO CRESPO, III, Defendant and Appellant. |
A109050
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC057042)
|
Thomas Erdulfo Crespo, III, appeals his conviction by jury verdict of spousal abuse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a),[1] count 1), assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2), terrorist threats (§ 422, count 3), and spousal battery (§ 243, subd. (a)(1), count 4). The jury found true the allegation that appellant personally used a knife in the commission of count 1. (§ 12022, subd. (b).)
In a bifurcated proceeding the court found true the allegations that counts 2 and 3 were serious felonies within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23), that appellant used a deadly weapon in their commission (§ 1203, subd. (e)(2)), and that he committed these offenses while on parole (§ 1203.085, subd. (b)).
Appellant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not object to expert witness testimony regarding battered women's syndrome.
BACKGROUND
Pre-August 2004 Relationship between Appellant and Victim
Appellant and the victim, Deanna Conrad Crespo (Crespo), began dating in July 2000. In November 2000, appellant pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) after hitting Crespo numerous times on her head and face with a closed fist. They resumed their relationship several weeks later because Crespo â€
