Filed 11/30/18 P. v. Vann CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Appointed counsel for defendant Cameron Alexander Vann asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Around 8:30 p.m. on September 16, 2016, an officer and his partner were patrolling by car when they saw a parked BMW next to a park with three people inside. The officer ran the license plate and found the registration had expired over a year ago.

The officers approached the BMW. Defendant was in the front passenger seat, his codefendant (not a party to this appeal) was in the driver’s seat, and a 17-year-old minor sat in the backseat. When the windows were rolled down, a strong smell of marijuana emanated.

The officers had defendant and the codefendant get out of the car. One officer then saw, through the open front passenger side door, the butt of a gun sticking out from underneath the passenger’s seat. He also saw a bag of marijuana on the front passenger floorboard. The officers did not reveal these observations to defendant and the codefendant.

Defendant and the codefendant were put in the back of the squad car. There, microphones and a camera captured their conversation, which was later played for the jury. The codefendant told defendant, “Don’t cooperate, don’t say nothing . . . blame it on nobody. You don’t know, you don’t know who’s it is. . . . Just don’t say nothing at all.” At one point, defendant said, “There’s no way we’re getting out of this.” At another point, the codefendant asked, “Where’d you put it?” Defendant responded, “It’s on the ground. I was trying to kick it far back as I could under the seat.”

The gun had two live rounds in the cylinder, and it was registered to someone other than defendant and the codefendant.

A jury found defendant guilty of carrying a loaded firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a))[1] and found he was not the registered owner of the gun (§ 25850, subd. (c)(6)). The jury returned a not guilty verdict for a count of carrying a concealed firearm, but found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempting to cause a firearm to be carried concealed within a vehicle by an occupant. (§§ 664/25400.) As to that count, the jury found defendant was not the registered owner and the gun was loaded. (§ 25400, subd. (c)(6).)[2]

The trial court granted probation, ordering defendant to serve 240 days in jail as a condition thereof, with the sheriff’s work release program as a possible alternative to jail. The court also awarded 21 days of credit (11 actual, 10 conduct) and imposed various fines and fees.[3]

DISCUSSION

Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

/s/

Mauro, Acting P. J.

/s/

Renner, J.