P. v. Enriquez
Defendant Jesse Enriquez was charged by amended information with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1), and with being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 5). The information also included gang and two prior strike allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A) & (B), § 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (b)).[1] The jury found defendant guilty of both counts and found all special allegations to be true. The trial court denied defendant’s Marsden[2] and Romero[3] motions. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 64 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for count 1, plus a determinate term of 5 years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and 5 years under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B). He received a consecutive term of 25 years to life on count 5, plus an additional four-year term under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A).
Defendant appeals his conviction. We appointed appellate counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The brief included a declaration from counsel that counsel reviewed the record and advised defendant of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief with this court.
The facts are these: On the morning of October 29, 2011, D.A., who was confined to a wheelchair, was retrieving something from the trunk of his Volvo. The Volvo was parked in front of his wife’s grandmother’s home on Carlton Avenue in Pomona. A group of eight or nine young African-American men were gathered across the street. D.A. heard one of the young men say something, and when he looked up, they were all running. D.A. saw a car driving down the street. A gun was sticking out the driver’s side passenger window. The car stopped and two “Mexican†men got out. One of them started shooting towards the group of African-American men. Bullets hit D.A.’s truck, which was parked in front of his Volvo. D.A. was unable to identify defendant in court.
Comments on P. v. Enriquez