People v. Rusco CA5

── People v. Rusco CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 P. v. Rusco CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F089146 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF200712A) v. RODNEY JAMES RUSCO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Nathan A. Coelho, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Charlotte Woodfork and Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Rodney James Rusco of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and attempted criminal threats (id., §§ 664/422) in connection with an altercation he had with a security guard and the trial court found true a prior serious felony allegation (id., § 667, subd. (a)) and multiple aggravating circumstance allegations. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) On appeal, defendant contends the trial court reversibly erred in failing to instruct the jury that attempted criminal threat requires a finding that the intended threat be sufficient under the circumstances to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear. Defendant also asserts insufficient evidence supports his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. In his opening brief, defendant also challenged the court’s order that the amount of victim restitution was to be determined by the probation department, but he abandons this claim in his reply brief. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1) and attempt to commit criminal threats (§§ 664/422, count 2). As to each count, it was further alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (e) through (j) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e). Multiple aggravating circumstances were also alleged as to each count including: the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (rule 4.421(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court; all rule references are to the California Rules of Court); defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime (rule 4.421(a)(2)); defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society (rule 4.421(b)(1)); defendant has prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings that are 2. numerous or of increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)); defendant has served a prior prison term or jail term under section 1170, subdivision (h) (rule 4.421(b)(3)); and defendant has had unsatisfactory performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision or parole (rule 4.421(b)(5)). As to coun