Filed 3/11/22 P. v. Contreras CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allen Joseph Webster, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Conforming to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Anthony Contreras’s counsel filed an opening brief containing a statement of facts but raising no issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently and to determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. Counsel advised Contreras he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Contreras did not do so.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the entire record. We find no arguable issues exist. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

On June 9, 2018, Contreras entered an El Super grocery store in Lynwood with his cousin, Edward Ceja, and one other person. Surveillance video from the store shows the three exchanged words with Francisco Rivera inside the store.

Contreras and his companions left the store and got into Contreras’s car. Surveillance videos from the parking lot show Contreras then moved his car into a spot with a better view of the store’s exit, even readjusting the car’s position in the spot after parking. When Rivera exited the store, Contreras sped his car down the aisle toward him. He stopped near Rivera, and Ceja jumped out of the car. Ceja shot at Rivera several times, hitting him in the forehead and arm. Ceja also hit two cars. Ceja got back into Contreras’s car, and Contreras sped away.

During a jury trial, the prosecutor introduced numerous pictures of Contreras and Ceja throwing hand signs for the gang “OTF,” or “Only the Family.” Contreras told an undercover agent in jail that he was a member of the gang OES, also known as One Eighty Seven or On Every Street. Pictures and video showed Contreras tagging OTF and OES. The prosecutor also introduced text messages between Contreras and Ceja that suggested Contreras was providing firearms and ammunition to Ceja and others. The prosecutor’s gang expert opined the shooting benefited a gang.

The jury convicted Contreras and Ceja of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted first degree murder. (§§ 664, 187.) In connection with the attempted murder charge, the jury found true allegations that a principal had discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and the defendants committed the attempted murder for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), & (e)(1), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) The jury also convicted them of one count of felony vandalism and one count of misdemeanor vandalism for the damage to the two cars. (§ 594, subd. (a).)

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted Contreras had no prior criminal record, and the court’s belief that Contreras did not pose a danger to society and had been a follower rather than a mastermind of the crime. The court sentenced Contreras to 15 years to life on the attempted murder charge plus two years on the felony vandalism charge and one year on the misdemeanor vandalism charge, with the vandalism charges to run concurrently. The court struck the gang and firearm enhancements.

Contreras appealed. Appellate counsel notified the trial court of certain sentencing errors. The trial court held another hearing and entered a new sentence of seven years to life on the attempted murder charge. The court clarified that the jury had not found gang allegations true with respect to the vandalism charges. The court otherwise affirmed the sentence, striking all gang and firearm enhancements.

Contreras’s counsel filed a brief in conformance with Wende. Contreras did not file a supplemental brief. We have examined the entire record of the proceedings and are satisfied Contreras’s attorney has fulfilled his obligations and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

• DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.

WILEY, J.

We concur:

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

STRATTON, J.