Quintero attacked a friend, Barajas, by cutting his face and stabbing him before pushing him out of the vehicle. Quintero was convicted of multiple offenses, including aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code, sec. 205) and torture (sec. 206). On appeal, he argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the mayhem and torture convictions. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Quintero focused his attack on the head, and used deliberate motions to wound Barajas’s face several times. He held Barajas’s hair as he slashed his cheek. From this evidence the jury could reasonably determine that Quintero had the specific intent to maim. Further, the court did not err when it refused to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense as a defense to mayhem. There was no substantial evidence to show that Quintero had an unreasonable belief that harm was imminent. Further, the defense of imperfect self-defense does not pertain to aggravated mayhem. Even if it did, refusal to instruct in this case would be harmless. It was not reasonably probable that a more favorable outcome would have resulted had the trial court given the instruction. The court reversed Quintero’s conviction for battery with serious bodily injury because it was a necessarily included offense of the mayhem conviction, though it did not reverse the assault with a deadly weapon conviction, as it was not necessarily included within the offense.