People v. Benson CA1/2
Filed 10/29/25 P. v. Benson CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172029 v. JASON BENSON, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 24012487) Defendant and Appellant.
Jason Benson appeals from a judgment after a jury trial convicting him of carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 25400, subd. (a)(2)) and carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a)); the court suspended imposition of his sentence and placed him on probation. His counsel requests that this court independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).2 Benson was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. Upon our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende, we conclude there are no arguable appellate issues requiring further briefing and affirm the judgment.
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Benson’s counsel initially filed an opening brief that he subsequently
moved to strike and replace with a Wende brief. We granted the motion.
1
BACKGROUND On July 6, 2024, Benson was walking toward the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco, intending to purchase some fentanyl to alleviate his withdrawal symptoms, when he noticed a shoe box that appeared to be brand new. Benson opened the box and found inside a “gnarly garment” that Benson moved aside, only to discover a firearm. Benson thought he needed to remove the firearm from the neighborhood because “[t]here’s a lot of mentally ill people in that area, a lot of drug addicts in that area, a lot of . . . the kind of people you wouldn’t want around with a handgun, myself included,” and “the last thing [he] wanted was the wrong people to get ahold of it.” Benson placed the firearm in his pocket and decided to throw it into the San Francisco Bay. But, given his withdrawal symptoms, Benson decided to “get well” and purchase fentanyl to use “first.” Benson walked in the opposite direction of the water for approximately half an hour into an area that is a “known drug area,” found someone who “goes by the name of Bobby,” and purchased 40 dollars’ worth of fentanyl. Bobby saw the firearm in Benson’s pocket as Benson retrieved money to pay for the fentanyl. Benson explained that he found the gun and planned “to get rid of it,” and Bobby offered to purchase the gun for three and a half grams of fentanyl and $200. Benson refused the offer but allowed Bobby to hold the firearm until Benson became anxious to get “this damn thing off of me.” He took the firearm back from Bobby and walked up the street to use the fentanyl. In the meantime, Officer Alexis Gomez received a phone call from an informant reporting someone in the Tenderloin neighborhood “was currently
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)