Filed 4/18/17 P. v. Sylvester 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

STEVEN HAMILTON SYLVESTER,

Defendant and Appellant.


E064739

(Super.Ct.No. SICRF-14-56689)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Inyo County. Brian J. Lamb, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Alana C. Butler and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Steven Hamilton Sylvester of willful failure to appear in court (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b)) and found true the allegation that he was released on his own recognizance when he failed to appear (§ 12022.1). A trial court sentenced him to a two-year split term, with 18 months to be served in county jail and the remaining six months to be served on mandatory supervision.
On appeal, defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of willfully failing to appear. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prosecution’s Case
At trial, the prosecutor presented three documents against defendant, and the court took judicial notice of all three. The first document was a copy of the “own recognizance” agreement that was signed by defendant and filed with the court on November 12, 2013, in another case in which he was released on his own recognizance pending a further court hearing. The second document was a copy of the court minutes from a hearing on February 25, 2014, at which defendant appeared and was ordered to return on March 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. The third document was a copy of the court minutes from the hearing on March 20, 2014, reflecting that the court made a finding that defendant failed to appear.{rt 71-72}
Defense Case
Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial. He said that on March 20, 2014, he was living with his mother and was her caretaker. Defendant said he could not drive because his driver’s license was suspended, and his mother drove him from their home in Palmdale to the court in Independence for his hearings. Defendant testified that he was in court on February 25, 2014, when the court ordered him to appear on Thursday, March 20, 2014. The drive from Palmdale to Independence was approximately three hours, and he planned on having his mother drive him to court on March 20, 2014. However, at 5:00 a.m. that morning, when they were getting ready to leave, his mother fell and injured her knee. He had to pick her up, bring her back in the house, and put an ice pack on her leg, which he said was bleeding for hours. Defendant, thus, could not make it to the court hearing. He said he did not take his mother to the hospital because “it was just a simple fall.” He called the court at 10:00 a.m. and spoke to a clerk. He told her what happened, and she said he could come to court in Independence on Tuesdays or Bishop on Wednesdays to take care of the warrant for his failure to appear. Defendant said he also called his attorney, but did not leave a message. Defendant admitted that his girlfriend had previously transported him to a court appearance, and he had other friends who drove, but said “they would probably have been at work.”
Defendant further testified that he had no plans to come to court until his mother was able to drive again. When asked if he looked into public transportation, defendant said he did, but he had “limited money.” He then said he looked into “all resources,” but he was busy taking care of his mother, which was his priority. When asked if he could have had one of his mother’s friends stay with her while he came to court to deal with his warrant, defendant said that “[m]ost of her friends would be at work, as well.” He admitted that he did not ask if any of them were available to help on March 20, 2014, or on March 25, 2014, when the clerk said he could come into court.
Defendant testified that he was arrested on March 26, 2014, when he was out getting food for him and his mother. The police had a warrant for his failure to appear.
Defendant’s mother also testified at trial. She said she had arthritis in both knees and she had blood clots, for which she took medication that slowed down the clotting time. She also testified that she drove defendant to his court appearances. She said they had planned to leave for court at 6:30 a.m. on March 20, 2014. However, at some time between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., she went outside to check the mail, tripped over a sprinkler, and fell. She said she got an abrasion on one knee and a small bruise on the other, and she needed defendant’s assistance for about five or six days.
The court operations manager for the Superior Court of Inyo County testified that the courthouse in Independence allowed walk-in appearances on Tuesdays at 1:00 p.m., and the courthouse in Bishop had walk-in appearances on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m.
ANALYSIS
There Was Sufficient Evidence to Support Defendant’s Conviction
Defendant contends that his conviction of failure to appear in court should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that he willfully failed to appear with the intent to evade the process of the court. He argues that his failure to appear on March 20, 2014, was due to reasons beyond his control. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
“In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
B. The Evidence Was Sufficient
Section 1320, subdivision (b), provides that, “[e]very person who is charged with or convicted of the commission of a felony who is released from custody on his or her own recognizance and who in order to evade the process of the court willfully fails to appear as required, is guilty of a felony.” One of the elements of the crime of failure to appear is that “the failure must be with the specific intent to evade the process of the court.” (People v. Forrester (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1701.)
Here, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that defendant willfully failed to appear. He was released on his own recognizance in another case. The court ordered him to return to court in the instant case on March 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Defendant testified that his mother fell and injured her knee at approximately 5:00 a.m. that day. Although he always depended on her for rides to court, he had friends who drove; however, he apparently did not ask any of them to drive him to court. Defendant did not call the court until 10:00 a.m., the time of his scheduled appearance, to say he was not coming. He spoke to a clerk and found out that he could have a walk-in appearance the following Tuesday or Thursday. However, he did not go to court on either day. He said he did not go to court the following Tuesday because he did not have a ride, but then admitted he had no plans to come to court until his mother was able to drive again. Defendant said he did not consider taking public transportation because his money was limited, and his first priority was to take care of his mother. Although he claims he could not leave her for several days because of her injury, he also said he never took her to the hospital because “it was just a simple fall.” Defendant said his mother had friends, but he admitted that he did not ask any of them to take care of her so he could go to court. Furthermore, defendant called his attorney on March 20, 2014, but did not leave a message. He made no effort after that day to take care of his warrant for his failure to appear.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:

CODRINGTON
J.

SLOUGH
J.