People v. Aldridge CA5

Filed 7/18/24 P. v. Aldridge CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086437 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF161711A) v.

DARREN EUGENE ALDRIDGE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Elizabet Rodriguez, Judge. Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellate counsel for defendant Darren Eugene Aldridge has filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues but asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes a declaration from appellate counsel stating defendant was advised of his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated March 18, 2024, we also invited defendant to submit additional briefing. Defendant submitted two responses. First, on April 16, 2024, defendant asked this court to be relieved of his appellate attorney, believing this attorney misrepresented information to this court in the opening brief. Ten days later, defendant filed another handwritten document requesting oral argument and raising various issues. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record, including defendant’s two filings with this court. Consistent with our Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of this case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In 2015, defendant was charged in an information with 31 separate felony counts. Among those counts alleged were nine counts of attempted murder, four counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and 14 counts of committing an assault with a firearm on law enforcement. The information also contained a number of enhancements alleging prior serious felony convictions, state or federal prison terms, and the use of firearms in the commission of various alleged crimes. On October 12, 2016, defendant pled guilty to one count of assault with a firearm on law enforcement (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (d)(1)), shooting at an occupied vehicle,