People v. Bounlord CA3

Filed 8/20/24 P. v. Bounlord CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098924

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR900008)

v.

LO BOUNLORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Lo Bounlord guilty of numerous offenses, the trial court sentenced defendant to upper terms for three of those offenses. On appeal, defendant essentially argues the court abused its discretion in imposing the upper terms based solely on his prior convictions. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND In 2022, defendant barricaded himself in his residence and shot at six police officers multiple times over the course of several hours. A jury found him guilty of six

1

counts of assault with a firearm upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (d)(1)),1 one count of second degree burglary (§ 459), and one count of grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)). The jury found true as to each of the assaults that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The jury was unable to reach verdicts on six counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and those charges were ultimately dismissed. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon. (§ 29800 (a)(1).) In his sentencing brief, defendant claimed the trial court could not impose the upper term, in part because no aggravating factors had been alleged in the charging document. Though defendant acknowledged he had prior convictions, he contended they were “of a de minimis nature” and thus insufficient to justify the upper term. In mitigation, defendant raised his mental illness and chronic drug use, arguing “[n]o person in his right mind would have committed the crimes alleged.” The People submitted a certified rap sheet delineating defendant’s prior convictions, which included two misdemeanor convictions from 2004, a 2007 felony conviction for cultivating marijuana, a 2007 felony conviction for possessing an assault weapon, a 2014 misdemeanor conviction for making criminal threats, and a 2014 misdemeanor conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. At sentencing, the trial court stated that it had “read and considered all the reports” and “all the briefs,” including the “certified rap sheet with the defendant’s priors.” As relevant here, the court ultimately found that the “aggravating factors outweigh those in mitigation, being the defendant’s prior convictions and the totality of the circumstances”