People v. Carrillogomez CA1/1

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Carrillogomez CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169824 v. (Alameda County NELSON CARRILLOGOMEZ, Super. Ct. No. 17-CR-005333) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nelson Carrillogomez appeals from the trial court’s imposition of an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of seven years, after a jury convicted him of attempted murder and found that he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 3, 2017, the Alameda County District Attorney filed an information alleging that, on February 5, 2017, defendant committed

attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a); count one) and one count of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count two). In addition, for each count, the district attorney alleged that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally inflicted great bodily injury causing paralysis (id., subd. (b)). Count one further alleged personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and personal and intentional discharge of a firearm (id., subd. (c)). The jury trial took place over four days in April 2023. The following was among the evidence adduced at trial: The victim, Luis F.,2 emigrated to the United States from Guatemala at age 16. While living in Guatemala, he had dated S.F. for about two years. While they were dating, S.F. lived with Luis’s parents. In 2015, S.F. moved to North Hollywood with her mother. Luis and S.F. did not continue dating after S.F. came to the United States but maintained contact with each other. While S.F. was living in North Hollywood, she met defendant on Facebook. He visited her in Southern California, and they began dating. She moved to Oakland and lived with him. They broke up, and she moved out and began renting a room from Luis’s godparents across the street from the home of Luis’s best friend, M.R. Luis did not know that defendant and S.F. were dating when he first met defendant. Luis met defendant in a barber shop, where defendant asked Luis for his phone number to invite him to a party. Luis thought the interaction was weird but gave defendant his phone number, eventually