People v. Ento CA2/4

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues that aggravated mayhem requires injury of “a very serious and permanent nature,” and that the evidence is insufficient to support such an injury. “‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we “examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citation.]’” (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210.) Section 205 provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person, intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of his or her body.” The disfigurement required for mayhem, whether aggravated (§ 205) or simple (§ 203),3 must be permanent. (People v. Newby (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1347.) The difference between the two…