People v. Matthews CA3

── People v. Matthews CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 P. v. Matthews CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) THE PEOPLE, C102513 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24FE006661) v. ORDER MODIFYING MICHAEL JAMES MATTHEWS, OPINION AND DENYING Defendant and Appellant. REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] 1 THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on March 27, 2026, be modified as follows: 1. On page 5, the second full paragraph beginning “Defense counsel argued that,” add the following as the first sentence of the paragraph: Defense counsel noted, and the trial court acknowledged, that counsel had proffered evidence A.K. was a professional mixed martial arts fighter. 2. On page 7, first full paragraph, the last sentence beginning “Further, while on appeal” is deleted in its entirety. 3. On page 7, the second full paragraph beginning “Similarly, although counsel argued” is deleted in its entirety. There is no change in the judgment. Defendant’s petition for rehearing is denied. BY THE COURT: /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/ RENNER, J. /s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J. 2 Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Matthews CA3 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- THE PEOPLE, C102513 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24FE006661) v. MICHAEL JAMES MATTHEWS, Defendant and Appellant. A jury found defendant Michael James Matthews guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and three driving offenses. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of four years eight months. On appeal defendant contends the trial court erred: (1) by excluding evidence that the assault victim, A.K., had a background in mixed martial arts, and (2) by failing to 1 consider sentencing defendant to the lower term under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) due to his psychological trauma that contributed to the commission of his crimes. We disagree and affirm. The parties agree the abstract of judgment contains errors and must be corrected. We agree and or