People v. Pugh CA2/6

Filed 12/15/25 P. v. Pugh CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B340425 (Super. Ct. No. LA087599) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

CHARLES EDWARD PUGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Charles Pugh appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In July 2012, Pugh was 16 years old when he committed three counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (b); counts 1, 3, and 4), two counts of home invasion robbery (§ 211; counts 5 and 6), and one count of kidnapping to commit another crime (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); count 2).

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In 2015, the People filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number LA082002 charging Pugh with six counts. Following a preliminary hearing in June 2016, Pugh was arraigned on the information. In November 2016, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57) became effective. Proposition 57 eliminated prosecutors’ ability to directly file charges against minors in criminal court. Prosecutors had to secure the juvenile court’s permission by way of a transfer hearing. (B.M. v. Superior Court (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 742, 746.) Here, the People filed a juvenile petition in case number PJ523304,2 and Pugh was transferred to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The People moved for a transfer hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. In July 2017, the juvenile court found Pugh would not be amenable to treatment under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(3)). The matter was transferred to adult criminal court jurisdiction. In 2018, case number LA082002 was dismissed because the People were unable to bring the case to trial within the statutory period. The People refiled the same charges in case number LA087599. In June 2019, Pugh pleaded no contest to all six counts. He also admitted the allegation as to counts 1 through 6 that a principal was armed with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(2)); as to counts 1 through 4 and 6, the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)); and as to count 5, that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great