Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

People v. Bipialaka

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight

April 17, 2019, Opinion Filed

B285656

Case Summary

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for using his car in an assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant raced across an intersection without braking. His relationship with his victims was immediate and immediate only. Defendant attempted by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; [2]-The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's second Pitchess motion. Defendant's motion did not demonstrate good cause for an in camera review of two deputies' personnel records; [3]-The abstract of judgment had to be amended to reflect that defendant's presentence credits were calculated according to Pen. Code, § 4019. It also had to be amended to reflect that a $1,000 restitution fine, not a $10,000 fine, was imposed, and that a $1,000 parole revocation restitution fine, not a $10,000 fine, was imposed and suspended.

Outcome

Matter remanded for resentencing with directions; judgment otherwise affirmed.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

 

 

Criminal Law & Procedure > ... > Crimes Against Persons > Assault & Battery > Aggravated Offenses

HN1  Aggravated Offenses

Cars can be deadly weapons.

 

Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Crimes Against Persons > Assault & Battery

HN2  Assault & Battery

The Williams test for assault is whether a reasonable person, viewing the facts known to defendant, would find that the act in question would directly, naturally, and probably result in physical force being applied to another, i.e., a battery.

 

Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Crimes Against Persons > Assault & Battery

HN3  Assault & Battery

Assault does not require an intent to cause an application of physical force or substantial certainty that force will be applied.

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

34 Cal. App. 5th 455 ; 246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177 ; 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 355 ; 2019 WL 1648993

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOMATAMUNOPIRI A. BIPIALAKA, Defendant and Appellant.

Subsequent History: Review denied by People v. Bomatamunopiri Bipial, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 5398 (Cal., July 24, 2019)

Prior History:  [1] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. GA099730, Jared D. Moses, Judge.

Disposition: Affirmed and remanded with directions.