People v. Ross CA5

Filed 7/8/25 P. v. Ross 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088856 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF182466B) v.

DONTAY LARRY ROSS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John R. Brownlee, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and De Santos, J.

Defendant Dontay Larry Ross is currently serving a prison sentence of life with the possibility of parole. His case was remanded for resentencing, and this appeal is taken from a judgment entered on remand. Defendant’s appellate counsel makes no claim of error and requests our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts relating to this appeal. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from him. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of People v. Gaines (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 91 (Gaines) and the appellate record in Gaines.1 (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459; see, e.g., Rel v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 882, 886.) We incorporate by reference the factual and procedural background set forth in Gaines. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) To summarize, defendant and Gaines were making a purchase at a convenience store where they exchanged words with a man who was accompanied by his girlfriend and her two young children. (Gaines, supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at p. 102.) A short time after leaving the store, Gaines stopped his vehicle in the street near where the man, girlfriend, and children were walking on the sidewalk while defendant exited the vehicle and shot at the individuals multiple times. (Ibid.) Defendant was convicted of premeditated attempted murder and related charges and sentenced to a term of seven years to life, plus 49 years 8 months in prison. (Ibid.)