Reardon

Defendant Sean Patrick Reardon appeals from his conviction for resisting an executive officer ( Pen. Code, § 69 ), 1 arguing the officer's use of excessive force negated an essential element of that offense. In a related claim, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying *349 his request to present the testimony of a use-of-force expert at trial.

As we explain, ample evidence supports the resisting count. Further, although the trial court excluded defendant's expert testimony for unsound reasons, defendant has not demonstrated prejudice. We remand with directions to address sentencing errors and correct the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We describe the facts surrounding use of force in some detail, as the officers' use of force is the focus of both defendant's claims on appeal. As we will explain, defendant resolved three of the charges against him pretrial, proceeding to trial only on charges of evading ( Veh. Code, § 2800.2 ; count 1), resisting an executive officer ( Pen. Code, § 69 ; count 5), and misdemeanor hit and run ( Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a) ; count 6). He challenges only his conviction on count…