People v. Green CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085512 · 2026-06-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF006108
Trial judge: William D. Lehman
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Michele M. Castillo (author), O'Rourke, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:21Z · confidence high

The trial court convicted Corey Green of two counts of resisting an executive officer after a jury found that correctional officers acted lawfully during a cell extraction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the officers' use of force was reasonable and lawful.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that correctional officers acted lawfully (i.e., did not use excessive force) during the cell extraction. “Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude the officers’ actions to restrain Green were not unreasonable or excessive. Thus, substantial evidence supports finding that Garvey and Castro were acting lawfully at the time of the offenses.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment. The opinion identifies specific evidence (Green's fighting stance, refusal to comply, and attempts to punch officers) that supports the jury's conclusion that the force used was reasonable, thereby satisfying the legal requirement that the officers were acting lawfully under Penal Code section 69.

Authorities

relied: People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 — Establishes that a necessary element of resisting an executive officer is that the officer was acting lawfully at the time of the offense.
relied: People v. Sibrian (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 127 — Establishes that an officer using excessive force is not acting lawfully for purposes of Penal Code section 69.
relied: People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327 — Defines the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence, requiring the court to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
relied: People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557 — Defines substantial evidence as evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.
relied: People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32 — Clarifies that on appeal, the court does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, or reevaluate witness credibility.
relied: People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73 — States that if substantial evidence exists to justify findings, the judgment cannot be reversed even if the facts could be reconciled with a contrary finding.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the well-established standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence and identifies specific factual findings from the record that support the jury's conclusion. It directly addresses the appellant's argument regarding the necessity of force by pointing to evidence of Green's combative behavior, which negates the claim that the force was unreasonable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

A jury in Imperial County Superior Court convicted Corey Green, a state prisoner, of two counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) arising from a cell extraction in which he fought correctional officers Garvey and Castro. On appeal Green argued the officers used unreasonable force and thus were not lawfully performing their duties, but the Court of Appeal held substantial evidence supported the jury's lawful-performance findings and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction on two counts of violating Penal Code section 69; jury's finding that officers Garvey and Castro were lawfully performing their duties (did not use excessive force) during the cell extraction “Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude the officers’ actions to restrain Green were not unreasonable or excessive.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The court correctly identified lawful performance as an element of section 69 (People v. Smith) and that excessive force negates lawfulness (People v. Sibrian), then applied the deferential whole-record standard from Zamudio and Johnson. The record recited—Green's refusal of orders, covering his cell windows, an hour of de-escalation, unresponsiveness prompting a welfare entry, a fighting stance, attempted punches and kicks, and the officers' injuries—readily permits a rational juror to find the tackle-and-restrain response reasonable. Green's argument that the need for a safety check evaporated when the door opened invites reweighing, which the court properly declined to do. No legal misstep appears.

Authorities

relied: People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 — A necessary element of resisting an executive officer under section 69 is that the officer was acting lawfully at the time of the offense.
relied: People v. Sibrian (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 127 — An officer using excessive force is not acting lawfully for purposes of section 69.
relied: People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327 — On sufficiency review the court examines the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
relied: People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557 — Substantial evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value.
relied: People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32 — A reviewing court does not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or reevaluate witness credibility.
relied: People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73 — If substantial evidence supports the findings, the judgment may not be reversed even if the facts could also be reconciled with a contrary finding.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion states the correct elements of section 69, the correct substantial-evidence standard, and applies them to record facts that plainly support the jury's finding that the officers' force was reasonable in response to a combative inmate. It is brief and does not separately address Green's retaliation testimony, but under the governing standard that testimony is a credibility matter for the jury, so the omission does not undermine the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/8/26 P. v. Green CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085512

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF006108)

COREY GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Lehman, Judge. Affirmed. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Donald W. Ostertag and Sahar Karimi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Corey Green of two counts of resisting an executive officer. (Pen. Code, § 69; counts 3-4.) Green contends insufficient evidence supports the jury’s findings that correctional officers Andrew Garvey and Joseph Castro acted in the lawful performance of their duties because in his view, the officers used unreasonable force against him. We conclude substantial evidence supports the jury’s findings. We therefore affirm. I. In December 2020, Green was serving a prison sentence. He became agitated with a prison correctional officer and refused the officer’s orders. Then, after the officer told Green to stop and put his hands behind his back, Green instead dashed into his cell. The officer testified to being worried that Green intended to retrieve something to attack the officer with or to dispose of contraband. Inmates are subject to search at any time, so after closing Green’s cell, the officer ordered Green to put his hands through an opening to be handcuffed. Green refused. He covered the cell windows, blocking the light and the officers’ view into his cell. Officers attempted to deescalate the situation by allowing Green to cool down while talking to him through his cell door. After approximately one hour, however, Green became unresponsive. Multiple officers testified that, when Green would not respond, they needed to ensure he was safe. As a result, four correctional officers, including Garvey and Castro, lined up behind a shield to enter Green’s cell. When they opened the cell door, Green was standing in a “fighting stance.” The first officer in the line ordered Green to come out of his cell, but Green refused. Green tried to punch the officers and pull away their shield as they stepped toward him. The officers tackled Green onto his bunk to secure him, using their shield to pin Green down. Green kicked his legs until the officers restrained him with handcuffs and leg irons. Once restrained, Green stopped fighting the officers and agreed to walk out of his cell on his own. Garvey and Castro were both injured in the scuffle.

2 Green testified, among other things, the extraction was in retaliation for filing grievances against prison staff for harassment. II. Green was charged with “knowingly resist[ing] by the use of force and violence” Garvey and Castro in the performance of their duties. (§ 69.) A necessary element of the offense is that “the officer was acting lawfully at the time of the offense.” (People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 241.) “An officer using excessive force is not acting lawfully.” (People v. Sibrian (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 127, 133.) In reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) Accordingly, we ask whether the evidence supporting each essential element is substantial, meaning it is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) “We do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.” (People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32, 42.) If substantial evidence exists to justify the findings, we may not reverse the judgment even if we believe the facts could also be reconciled with a contrary finding. (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 104.) Green argues insufficient evidence shows the officers acted lawfully because the need for a safety check vanished once they opened the cell door and the resulting force they applied was thus unreasonable. According to Green, “[t]here was no necessity to throw their weight around by gang tackling ” him. His argument, however, overlooks evidence Green was physically combative with the officers when they opened his cell door. Among 3 other evidence, Green continued to refuse orders to come out of his cell and tried to punch the officers. Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude the officers’ actions to restrain Green were not unreasonable or excessive. Thus, substantial evidence supports finding that Garvey and Castro were acting lawfully at the time of the offenses. III. We affirm.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Sibrian A143369 · 2016-09-07
People v. Smith S201186 · 2013-07-18
People v. Zamudio S074414 · 2008-04-21
People v. Valdez S026872 · 2004-01-06
People v. Johnson Crim. 20710 · 1980-02-29