People v. Brigham CA2/7

Filed 7/16/24 P. v. Brigham CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B332960

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA508917) v.

TYREECE BRIGHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victoria B. Wilson, Judge. Affirmed. Frank Bazadier for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________

INTRODUCTION

Tyreece Brigham, represented by counsel, appeals from a judgment after pleading no contest to having a concealed firearm in a vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 25400, subdivision (a)(1).1 Brigham challenges his conviction by asserting that section 25400 is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 (Bruen) and the high court’s potential grant of a writ of certiorari in Nichols v. Newsom (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2022, No. 14-55873) 2022 WL 4295404.2 Brigham’s opening brief, however, fails to present any argument explaining how or why section 25400 violates the Second Amendment. Given the summary nature of his argument, we conclude Brigham has forfeited his constitutional challenge. (See People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 512.) We affirm.