People v. Searles-Harris
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | DETJEN, Acting P.J. |
| Decision Date | 09 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | F070499 |
| Citation | People v. Searles-Harris, F070499 (Cal. App. Aug 09, 2017) |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY SCOTT SEARLES-HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John W. Lua, Judge.
Donn Ginoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Rachelle A. Newcomb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo- Anthony Scott Searles-Harris (defendant) and Randy Dale Miller (Miller) were jointly charged with acting in concert to commit forcible oral copulation upon K.M.1 and C.W. (Pen. Code,2 § 288a, subd. (d)(1) [count 1]); acting in concert to commit forcible oral copulation upon K., a minor under 14 years of age (id., subd. (d)(2) [count 2]); participating in oral copulation with K., a minor under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger (id., subd. (c)(1) [count 5]); participating in oral copulation with K., a minor under 18 years of age (id., subd. (b)(1) [count 6]); and committing a lewd or lascivious act upon K., a minor under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a) [count 7]). Defendant was separately charged with making criminal threats (§ 422 [counts 3 & 4]); committing a lewd or lascivious act upon K., a minor under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a) [count 8]); participating in oral copulation with K., a minor under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger (§ 288a, subd. (c)(1) [count 9]); participating in oral copulation with C., a minor under 18 years of age (id., subd. (b)(1) [count 10]); possessing child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a) [count 11]); annoying or molesting C., a minor under 18 years of age (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1) [count 12]); opening or maintaining a place for the purpose of unlawful selling, giving away, or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366 [count 13]); committing an assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2) [count 14]); and contributing to the delinquency of minors (§ 272 [count 15]). Prior to trial, the case against Miller was resolved.3 At the close of the People's case-in-chief, the People dismissed counts 3, 4, 13, and 14. During defendant's case, the People dismissed count 15.
The jury found defendant guilty as charged in counts 2, 8, and 9, but could not reach a verdict on counts 1, 5 through 7, and 10 through 12. The trial court declared a mistrial as to the deadlocked counts, which were then dismissed on the motion of the People. Defendant's motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct was denied. The court imposed the middle term sentence of 12 years on count 2 and stayed execution of the middle term of six years on count 8 and the middle term of six years on count 9 pursuant to section 654.
On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the evidence did not support the conviction for forcible oral copulation on count 2; (2) the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to inquire into the alleged juror misconduct; and (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction on corroboration of accomplice testimony. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the conviction on count 2 and remand for resentencing.
On July 29 or 30, 2011, Lisa G. became aware that her daughter Savanna, then 13 years old, attended parties at a residence on Oildale Drive in Bakersfield. On the night of July 30, 2011, Lisa G. passed by the house and "saw a bunch of kids out drinking in the yard . . . ." One of these "kids" was C. Lisa G. called 911 and reported underage drinking. A sheriff's deputy dispatched to the scene verified the address on Oildale Drive.
During the summer of 2011, Stormy, then 15 years old, attended four or five parties at the residence on Oildale Drive. Defendant and Harry Duckworth lived at that residence. Several of Stormy's schoolmates under 18 years of age also attended thesegatherings, including K., C., Bryant, and Shelbie. Stormy saw K. "three or four times" and C. "[a]ll five times."
According to Stormy, "[t]here w[ere] more minors . . . than adults" at these parties. In addition, whenever she was introduced to an adult, she was either asked about her age or identified as a minor. Stormy once observed defendant handing out beer to various minors. She herself "did a shot of" "hard liquor" on one occasion and "shotgunned a beer" on another occasion.
Defendant once showed Stormy and Duckworth video footage on his camcorder. In the footage, an unidentified male carried a case of beer into a bathroom, where K. and C. were naked in the bathtub. When the girls indicated they "wanted to get drunk," they were told "they would get to drink" "if they had done foreplay or sexual intercourse." K. and C. proceeded to engage in an act of oral copulation. Defendant, who was recording the act, turned the camcorder toward himself and "kind of did like a thumb's up like he digged it . . . ."
During the summer of 2011, Bryant, then 17 years old, attended "drinking parties" at the residence on Oildale Drive. He knew K. and C. but only saw the latter at the house. Before the end of the summer, defendant told "everybody" "he had a video of K[.] and C[.] going down on each other" "in his bathroom in the bathtub." Bryant did not view the footage.
During the summer of 2011, K., then 13 years old, attended at least four or five parties at the residence on Oildale Drive. At these parties, she "[go]t drunk." Defendant, who was aware of K.'s age, provided the alcohol "[e]very single time." He also supplied marijuana and pills, which he claimed were Xanax and/or Vicodin. K. remembered the house had surveillance cameras that would let partygoers know "when the cops came" so they could "run out the back door."
At one party, which transpired sometime after July 4, 2011, but before August 2011, defendant offered K. and C. money and drugs if they "made a video for him" "t[a]k[ing] a shower" and engaging in an act of oral copulation. He gave the girls pills, which he claimed were Vicodin, and filmed them naked in the bathtub. At defendant's direction, K. "place[d] [he]r mouth" on C.'s vagina and vice versa. When two male guests entered the bathroom, the girls stopped because they were embarrassed and "already uncomfortable enough as it was." The following day, defendant showed the footage to K. and promised not to share it with other people.
A "couple of weeks" after the filming, K. and C. were at the residence for another party when defendant "made everybody leave" except them. When they attempted to leave, he told them to "stay there" because "he had a job for [them]." Thereafter, Miller arrived. Defendant offered K. and C. money if they gave Miller a "blow job." The girls accepted and proceeded to orally copulate Miller's penis in defendant's bedroom while defendant waited in the living room. Afterward, however, defendant refused to pay them because Miller "didn't finish."
According to K., at or around the time of the filming and the "blow job," defendant warned her and C. that "if [they] told anybody what he was doing or what [they] were doing," i.e., "that stuff . . . with [Miller] and the stuff . . . with the video," "he would kill [them]." He also mentioned "he had already killed somebody before," "he had buried them in his backyard," and "[they] would end up just like them if [they] said anything." K. "wasn't scared then . . . ." She did not believe defendant would kill her or C. because he was their friend. Moreover, K. did not believe he had buried someone in his backyard. At trial, however, she was "[n]ow" fearful because she was "putting [defendant] on blast" in his presence.
In defendant's living room, a mirror displayed the words "[t]he fuck mirror" and the names of several girls 18 years of age or younger, including K., C., Becca, Mercedes, Hannah, Monique, and Shelbie.
During the summer of 2011, C. attended more than five parties at the residence on Oildale Drive. Several of her schoolmates under 18 years of age also attended these gatherings, including K. At these parties, C. and other partygoers consumed beer and pills, both of which were provided by defendant.
C. turned 18 years old on July 10, 2011. She recounted two sexual encounters that occurred before this date: (1) defendant filmed her "plac[ing] [he]r mouth on" K.'s vagina and vice versa while they were naked in a bathtub; and (2) defendant "had [her] and K. go to a room" and orally copulate Miller.
According to C., defendant told her "not to tell anyone" about the partying, the drinking, and the pills. She was "okay" with the request because she "was young" and "wanted to drink." Defendant never threatened to kill C. and did not indicate "what would happen to [her] if [she] told anyone about the drinking and the pills."
C. signed her name on a mirror in defendant's house sometime during the summer of 2011. She saw K. and other friends sign the same mirror.
Miller has known defendant for approximately 15 years. He could not recall where defendant lived in the summer of 2011 because defendant "was homeless during that time," "was moving around here and there," and "never really had a spot that he stayed at." Miller did visit a residence on Oildale Drive owned by defendant's mother "a couple times."
Sometime in 2011, Miller received a phone call or text message from defendant at 2:00 a.m. asking him to "come...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting