Opinion
E065824
06-21-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO TERAN SANTOS, Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Schuck, 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, Charles C. Ragland and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1504061) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen J. Gallon, judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, 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, Charles C. Ragland and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Ricardo Teran Santos is serving a 10-year, second-strike prison term for stabbing his girlfriend in the forearm with a screwdriver. Defendant challenges the jury's "true" findings on the great bodily injury enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.7) to his convictions for domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon. Because the jury could reasonably have gone either way on the evidence presented, we affirm.
Section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
Defendant and the victim lived with the victim's mother, their child together, another child of the victim, and the victim's sister. On the morning of August 11, 2015, several friends came over to celebrate defendant's birthday. They were all drinking alcohol in the garage. Defendant and the victim got into an argument and defendant threw some of the victim's belongings into the street. The victim tried to get her purse from defendant and they began throwing punches at one another. At one point, the victim stepped back and noticed she was bleeding from a puncture wound to her right forearm. She also noticed defendant was holding a screwdriver. As the victim grabbed for the screwdriver, defendant bit her on her left arm, causing her to let go of his arm holding the screwdriver. The two wrestled and the victim was thrown to the ground. Defendant stood over the victim and hit her on the head with the screwdriver. Defendant's friends took the screwdriver from him and left the residence with him.
The victim's mother came downstairs after she heard the victim yelling something like, "You stabbed me. You stabbed me." The victim's mother called police. The police came and advised the victim and her mother to obtain a restraining order immediately. The victim, her mother, sister and children all drove together to the courthouse in Temecula, but were told they needed to go to the courthouse in Hemet. The victim's arm was still bleeding, so they decided to go to urgent care instead of the Hemet courthouse.
At trial, two medical professionals from the urgent care facility testified regarding the nature and treatment of the injury to the victim's arm. Mr. Steppe is the medical assistant who prescreened the victim at about 5:30 p.m. When asked if the wound was still bleeding at that time, Mr. Steppe testified: "It was more of coagulated blood . . . . And there was a little bit of exposed tissue from under the skin as well." He cleaned and sterilized the wound to prepare it for treatment. Mr. Steppe described the wound as 10 to 12 millimeters in diameter. The screwdriver pulled out from the wound some fat and muscle tissue, "kind of like a cauliflower effect." On cross-examination, Mr. Steppe stated regarding the wound, "Hers definitely needed to be treated. Any type of open flesh wound has to be treated right away. Otherwise, it can be infected, possibly gangrene, amputation. It can progress from there." He then clarified that with treatment, the wound would heal with no long-term disability because no internal nerves or tendons were struck.
Ms. Blinkinsop is the physician's assistant who treated the victim's wound. She stated the victim had been stabbed around 1:00 p.m. and had come to the urgent care clinic four hours later because the wound continued to bleed. The victim also had multiple scratches on her chest and a human bite mark on her left arm. Ms. Blinkinsop treated the screwdriver wound by flushing it with saline solution, then put on a small Steri-Strip, followed by a bandage and dressing. The wound was not sutured because, as Ms. Blinkinsop described, "I actually didn't want to suture it closed because of the type of wound it was. It was a puncture. So, it was actually better for it to kind of ooze a little bit. And it wasn't real large, but . . . it was bothering her that it kept bleeding. So . . . I . . . used the Steri-Strip . . . to . . . pull it together a little bit and cover it so it would help control bleeding [but allow it to drain]." The victim was also given a tetanus shot, an antibiotic, Motrin for pain relief, and ice for swelling. Ms. Blinkinsop estimated the wound was very small in diameter, approximately one-sixteenth to one-eighth of an inch. She characterized the wound itself as "not a significant wound," because it could be treated with the Steri-Strip rather than sutures. But "as far as that the injury could have caused . . . damage underneath the skin and could have put her at risk for infection or damage." There was no damage to nerves or tendons and the movement of the victim's hand was not affected.
A Steri-Strip is a sterile piece of tape often used to secure an incision.
On October 5, 2015, the People filed an information charging defendant in count 1 with inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (§273.5, subd. (f)(1)), in count 2 with assault with a deadly weapon (§245, subd. (a)(1)) and in count 3 with violation of a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)). Regarding counts 1 and 2, the People further alleged defendant inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) Regarding count 1, the People alleged defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The People also alleged generally that defendant had a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (c) &(e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
On December 16, 2015, the jury convicted defendant on all charges and found true each of the enhancement allegations. Defendant admitted the prior conviction allegations.
On April 8, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison as follows: two years on count 1, doubled to four years for the strike prior, plus five years for the serious felony prior, plus one year for the weapon use enhancement. The court stayed the sentence for count 3. The court also stayed the great bodily injury enhancement to counts 1 and 2 that is at issue here. The court commented that, "The GBI allegation, finding that is de minimus as compared to other GBIs of the tame type of allegation, nature, and circumstances, the court will stay the low term on the GBI allegation."
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues the true finding on the great bodily injury enhancement is not supported by substantial evidence because the cut on the victim's arm was small and insignificant.
Section 12022.7, subdivision (e), provides in pertinent part: "Any person who personally inflicts great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence in the commission of a felony or attempted felony shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for three, four, or five years." "Great bodily injury 'means a significant or substantial physical injury.'" (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 63-64.) "Proof that a victim's bodily injury is 'great'—that is, significant or substantial within the meaning of section 12022.7—is commonly established by evidence of the severity of the victim's physical injury, the resulting pain, or the medical care required to treat or repair the injury. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 66.) Our high court has "described great bodily injury as 'substantial injury beyond that inherent in the offense'"; however, "the injury need not be so grave as to cause the victim '"permanent," "prolonged," or "protracted"' bodily damage. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 64.)
" ' "A fine line can divide an injury from being significant or substantial from an injury that does not quite meet the description." ' [Citations.] Where to draw that line is for the jury to decide." (People v. Cross, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 64.) "If there is sufficient evidence to sustain the . . . finding of great bodily injury, we are bound to accept it, even though the circumstances might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." (People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750.)
Here, it appears to us that the jury could reasonably have gone either way on this evidence. In support of the verdict is the following. First, the screwdriver pulled up some fat and muscle tissue out of the puncture wound, in what the medical assistant called a "cauliflower effect." Second, the wound was still bleeding approximately four hours after the stabbing so that the victim and her mother felt it was more important to obtain medical treatment than get a restraining order. Third, both the medical assistant and the physician's assistant described the potential for infection and subdermal tissue damage if the victim had not sought medical treatment. Fourth, the medical assistant further described the potential for gangrene and amputation if such an open flesh wound went untreated.
Defendant highlights the testimony that the wound required no sutures, the victim sustained no permanent damage, and the victim did not appear to be in any great pain. However, the physician's assistant explained that puncture wounds such as this one are better treated without stitches so as to let the wound drain and heal. In People v. Flores (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 251, the appellate court upheld the jury finding of great bodily injury in the form of puncture wounds from a dog bite that required only four sutures, and, as in this case, left no scars and caused no permanent disability. (Id. at p. 262.)
Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the victim sustained great bodily injury.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. FIELDS
J.