P. v. Breedlove










Filed 3/21/17 P. v. Breedlove CA4/2






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KYREE DALONEFLINT BREEDLOVE,

Defendant and Appellant.



E066473

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1502363)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael B. Donner, Judge. Affirmed.
Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Kyree Doloneflint Breedlove is serving 15 years in state prison for a robbery in which he used a firearm. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On the evening of July 21, 2015, the victim drove to his in-laws’ house to pick up his children. The house was on a dirt road, and the street was somewhat dark. The victim pulled into the driveway just outside the gate. Light was coming from the open garage door and from the neighbor’s house across the street. Several adult family members were in the garage. A few seconds after the victim parked, he saw a two-door car with three men in it drive down the street and park near him. The defendant, who was in the front passenger seat with the window rolled down, asked for the time. The victim’s driver side window was also rolled down. As the victim was looking for the time, the defendant came up to him and pressed a gun firmly on the victim’s temple. The gun was pressed so hard against his temple that it was sore for some time after. The defendant told the victim: “Give me everything you got, give me your wallet, give me everything that you have.” The victim removed his identification, and gave defendant his wallet. Defendant then asked for the victim’s cell phone. At some point, a second passenger got out of the car and came over and placed a second gun at the victim’s head. When the victim hesitated to give the men his cell phone, they both tapped his head with their guns and asked him, “You think this is a game?”
At that time, the victim’s brother-in-law came running out of the garage yelling at the men. The two men ran toward the car they came in, which started driving slowly. The men struggled to pull the front seat forward so the second man could get in the backseat and to pull it back so defendant could get in the front seat and close the door. When the car reached the end of the street, it made a U-turn back toward the victim. The victim screamed at his family to go inside, and then drove toward the car to lead it away from his in-laws’ home. When the two cars were three- to four-car lengths away from each other, the victim heard about five gunshots coming from the other car, saw sparks on the floor, and felt a bullet hit his car. None of the bullets hit the victim’s body. A cellular telephone that was traced to defendant was later found in front of the in-laws’ home. The victim identified the defendant from a six-pack photo lineup.
On March 22, 2016, the People filed a second amended information charging defendant in count 1 with robbery (Pen. Code § 211) and in count 2 with assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). Regarding count 1, the peopled alleged defendant was armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1).)
On May 24, 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of counts 1 and 2 and found true the firearm enhancement.
On July 16, 2016, the court sentenced defendant to 15 years in prison as follows: the upper term of five years for count 1, plus 10 years consecutive for the firearm enhancement. The court stayed the sentence for count 2 pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant’s appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a brief statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court undertake an independent review of the record. We have also afforded defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the entire record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ
P. J.


We concur:


HOLLENHORST
J.


McKINSTER
J.


Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com