People v. Bath CA2/6
── People v. Bath CA2/6 ──
Court: California Court of Appeal
Date: June 05, 2026
Category: General
Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Bath CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B343934
(Super. Ct. No. 2024010829)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
CARSON BATH,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted Carson Bath of criminal threats, battery,
robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon after hearing evidence
of two incidents involving separate victims. Bath appeals the
convictions contending the trial court improperly: 1) consolidated
the two cases; 2) admitted e-mails and texts under Evidence Code
section 1101, subdivision (b), and 3) punished him twice for the
same criminal conduct in violation of Penal Code section 654.1
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
stated otherwise.
We agree that, under section 654, the trial court should not
have punished Bath for both robbery (count 3) and assault with a
deadly weapon (count 4). The case is remanded for resentencing
with instructions for the court to stay the sentence on either count
3 or count 4. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Criminal threats and battery incident (case no. 2024010829)
A.S. and Bath worked together at McDonald’s from
November 2023 to February 2024. A.S. sometimes supervised
Bath. She saw “minor altercations” between Bath and his co-
workers and believed he had an anger problem. On one occasion,
Bath became upset with A.S. when she refused to give a co-worker
a free meal. A.S., however, believed she and Bath were on good
terms when he quit the job.
A week later, Bath called A.S.’s supervisor and threatened to
kill A.S. and other employees if he ever encountered them. A.S.
felt afraid when her supervisor told her about the threats because
she had seen Bath lash out at her co-workers. He had also
mentioned prior “issues with the law” and said he “was not scared
of getting in trouble.” Although she was afraid, A.S. did not report
the threat to law enforcement.
In April 2024, A.S. saw Bath in a study room at the Oxnard
Public Library. They made eye contact, but A.S. continued
walking. A.S. heard the study room door open, heard footsteps
behind her, and then heard Bath either call her name or say, “hey.”
She turned and came face to face with him. Bath spat in her face.
The spittle hit A.S.’s left eye and some “fell” into her mouth. She
described Bath’s voice as “angry and frustrated.” He looked
agitated. When A.S. reached for her phone, Bath said he “was
going to kill [her] if he ever saw [her] again.” A.S. was scared. She
2
used her cell phone to record Bath as he walked away. In the
video, he can be heard saying “kill you and people like you. You’re
lucky. Go back to flippin’ your burgers.” A.S. reported the threat
to a library employee who called the police.
Oxnard Police Department Officer Charles Buttell met with
A.S. at the library. Officer Buttell later described A.S. as visibly
upset, scared, crying and “shaken.” A.S. reported that Bath had
spit on her and threatened her. Officer Buttell then found Bath,
who was still at the library, and talked to him. Bath said A.S. and
other co-workers bullied and harassed him when he worked at
McDonald’s. He told Officer Buttell that A.S. walked by him in the
library and was “laughing at me and flipped me o
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}