People v. Peeler CA3

Filed 1/8/25 P. v. Peeler CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100855

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F06302)

v.

BRICE PEELER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Brice Peeler appeals from a postconviction order resentencing him pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and asked that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal. Defendant did not file a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

supplemental brief. It appears that counsel did not notify defendant that his failure to file a supplemental brief may result in dismissal of his appeal (see People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216); accordingly, we independently review the record. (See id. at p. 226.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Verdicts and Original Sentencing In 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of assault upon a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (d)(2)), evading a peace office (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). As to the assault charge, the jury also found true a gun enhancement. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true that defendant had a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), a prior strike (§§ 667, subs. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and three prior prison term enhancements (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The prior serious felony and prior strike allegations were based on a 2009 conviction for criminal threats. (§ 422.) The three prior prison term enhancements were based on: (1) a 2005 conviction for possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), (2) a 2004 conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a controlled substance (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11377), and (3) a 2001 conviction for impersonating another (former Pen. Code, § 529(3)) and failure to appear (former Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b)). In May 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for an aggregate term of 38 years eight months, as follows: (1) 18 years (the upper term of nine years doubled due to the strike) for the assault charge plus 10 years consecutive for the associated gun enhancement, (2) 16 months (one-third the middle term of two years doubled) consecutive for the evasion charge, (3) 16 months (one-third the middle term of two years