People v. Fayed CA2/7

Filed 2/17/26 P. v. Fayed CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B345178

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA346352) v.

JAMES MICHAEL FAYED,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Dismissed. James Michael Fayed, in pro. per.; Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

James Michael Fayed appeals from the superior court’s order granting his petition for writ of habeas corpus, vacating his restitution fine under Penal Code section 1465.9, subdivision (d),1 and correcting the abstract of judgment. We appointed counsel to represent Fayed on appeal. After reviewing the record counsel for Fayed filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that did not identify any arguable issues. After independently reviewing the record and the contentions in Fayed’s supplemental brief, we have not identified any either. We dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court in People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147 (Fayed) summarized the facts of this case. “Shortly after initiating divorce proceedings in October 2007, defendant arranged for Pamela Fayed’s murder by paying the couple’s employee, Jose ‘Joey’ Moya, $25,000 to kill her. Moya, in turn, enlisted Gabriel Jay Marquez, the boyfriend of his niece, and Steven Simmons, Marquez’s nephew. On July 28, 2008, Pamela was stabbed to death in a Century City parking garage, moments after she had left a meeting with defendant and their respective attorneys. At the time of her murder, defendant and Pamela were under federal investigation for allegedly laundering money for Ponzi schemes through their e-currency business.” (Id., at p. 155, fn. omitted.) “On or about September 15, 2008, a complaint charged defendant with the first degree murder of Pamela. [Citation.] It