People v. Nnedum CA3

Filed 3/14/25 P. v. Nnedum CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100208

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-172434)

v.

PETER CHIDUMEBI NNEDUM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Peter Chidumebi Nnedum asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nnedum was charged with committing in March 2020 first degree residential burglary of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21);1 count one)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

and felony unlawful use of personal identifying information (§ 530.5, subd. (a); count two). It was further alleged Nnedum had a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), both based on a 2019 first degree burglary conviction. In October 2021, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Nnedum’s competence to stand trial. (§ 1367 et seq.) The trial court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed a psychologist to evaluate Nnedum. The psychologist opined Nnedum was competent to stand trial. In December 2021, the trial court found Nnedum competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. In March 2022, Nnedum pled no contest to all charges and admitted the prior strike and prior serious felony. In a September 2022 sentencing brief, the prosecution described Nnedum’s current crimes: The night of the burglary, Nnedum entered the victims’ home around 3:00 a.m., where a six-year-old girl and her parents were sleeping. Nnedum entered the girl’s bedroom but ran out when she awoke. The girl ran to her mother’s room and said she had seen a man in her room. The mother opened her bedroom door and saw Nnedum shuffling down the hallway toward the living room, where the father was sleeping. The mother closed and locked her bedroom door. Meanwhile, Nnedum stole a purse, a briefcase, headphones, and two electronic tablets. Surveillance video footage showed Nnedum parking his car near the victims’ home at around 2:00 a.m., getting out of his car and walking toward the home, and then returning to his car about an hour later and driving away. Additional video showed Nnedum attempting to use the victims’ credit cards later that morning. The prosecution asked the court to decline to strike Nnedum’s prior strike. The prosecution argued the current crimes were dangerous in nature. In addition, Nnedum’s prior strike—also a first degree burglary committed while the victims were sleeping— was similar to his current crimes. Further, although Nnedum currently claimed he