PEOPLE v. HALEY
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
JEFFREY PATRICK HALEY, Defendant and Appellant.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.
Filed August 25, 2010.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Hanks and James D. Dutton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTSOPINION
A jury found defendant Jeffrey Patrick Haley guilty of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 240), possession of a firearm by a felon (Id., § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), misdemeanor vandalism (Id., § 594, subd. (a), (b)(2)(A)), four misdemeanor counts of violation of a protective order (Id., § 166, subd. (c)(1), (2)), willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Id., § 273.5, subd. (a)), and willful infliction of corporal punishment on a child (Id., § 273d, subd. (a)).
Defendant contends the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a 1997 domestic violence incident under Evidence Code section 1109.1 The evidence had been excluded at his first trial, which ended in a mistrial. He complains the court lacked authority to revisit the evidentiary ruling, abused its discretion under section 352, and violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. Defendant also argues the court abused its discretion by excluding under section 352 an edited 10-minute tape recorded statement the victim gave to police at the scene of one of the incidents, and claims reversal is required based on the cumulative effect of the errors. Finally, in a supplemental brief he argues he is entitled to additional custody credits based on recent amendments to section 4019. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the judgment, but remand for the trial court to recalculate defendant's custody credits.IFactual and Procedural Background