People v. Gee CA4/1

Filed 8/8/25 P. v. Gee CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083323

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. BAF2101139)

TYRONE ULYSIS GEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Timothy J. Hollenhorst, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following a bench trial, the court found Tyrone Ulysis Gee guilty of attempted first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count 1),

assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245(b); count 2), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800(a)(1); count 3). It further found true allegations (1) as to count 1, that Gee personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, proximately causing great bodily injury or death (§§ 12022.53(d), 1192.7(c)(8)); and (2) as to count 2, that Gee personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7(a), 1192.7(c)(8)) and personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5(a), 1192.7(c)(8)). The court sentenced Gee to an aggregate prison term of 54 years to life. On appeal, Gee contends his jury trial waiver was not knowing and intelligent because he was inadequately advised of the rights he was relinquishing, so reversal is required. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we agree. In particular, given Gee’s learning disabilities, his limited education, his history of mental illness, and indications his basic competence for trial depended on him taking antipsychotic medications, the trial court at a minimum should have ensured Gee understood the important right he was relinquishing. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. According to his probation report, Gee “stopped attending school after the sixth grade due to his psychiatric and learning disability diagnoses.” In September 2021, Gee shot his neighbor in the face, resulting in the charges of which he was ultimately convicted. A. Gee’s counsel declared doubt as to Gee’s competency to stand trial. The court appointed doctors to examine Gee and to furnish reports addressing the issue.