Filed 12/14/17 P. v. Krieger 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

RONALD EUGENE KRIEGER, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068098

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1502234)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Susan L. Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Ronald Eugene Krieger, Jr., pled guilty to assault with a semiautomatic firearm. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b); count 7.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of nine years of incarceration.
After defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the People or the court erred in failing to provide defense counsel with discovery, including ballistic testing, pictures taken by the forensic technician, and transcripts of a purported 911 call. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2015, an officer responded to the victim’s residence; the victim informed the officer that his stepbrother, defendant, shot at him on June 6, 2015. The victim, who lived with defendant, had a friend over who was drinking milk; defendant became upset that the victim’s friend was drinking milk; the victim and defendant engaged in an argument, which escalated to the point where defendant challenged the victim to a fight.
Defendant and the victim walked outside to fight; however, defendant walked back towards the house and told the victim he did not want to fight. The victim drove away in his truck with his nine-year-old daughter and another person.
As he drove away, the victim heard two gunshots and felt an impact on his driver’s side door. The victim saw defendant standing in the driveway holding what he believed was a gun. The victim reported that defendant owned a nine-millimeter Beretta which the victim has personally seen defendant carrying.
The victim drove a couple of blocks away before stopping to check if anyone was injured. Thereafter, the victim received threatening messages on his cell phone from defendant’s phone number. The officer and an investigative technician inspected and photographed the victim’s vehicle. The investigative technician removed what appeared to be bullet fragment from the vehicle’s doorframe. The officer spoke with defendant who, after waiving his Miranda rights, said he had fired his nine-millimeter Berretta at a couple of unknown Hispanic males who were threatening him.
On October 28, 2015, the People charged defendant by felony information with attempted murder (count 1; §§ 664, 187), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 2 & 3; § 245, subd. (b)), discharge of a firearm at a motor vehicle (count 4; § 246), criminal threats (count 5; § 422), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 6; § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The People additionally alleged defendant had personally used a firearm in counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) and had suffered four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On January 27, 2017, defendant pled guilty to the added count 7 offense as recounted above. In his notice of appeal filed on April 3, 2017, defendant alleged the People failed to honor defense counsel’s discovery requests with respect to a ballistic test report, pictures taken by the forensic technician, and a transcript of a purported 911 call.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER
J.

FIELDS
J.