California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 2026 No. E086256Unpublished
Filed 3/10/26 P. v. Cazessus CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E086256
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI24002390)
ANTHONY JUAN CAZESSUS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Joseph B. Widman,
Judge. Affirmed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In this Anders/Wende1 matter, defendant and appellant Anthony Juan Cazessus
appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment following a jury verdict convicting him of
unlawful possession of, as a convicted felon, both a firearm (Pen. Code,2 § 29800,
subd. (a)(1); count 2) and ammunition (id., § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The jury
acquitted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2) [firearm];
count 1), including the firearm use and great bodily injury (GBI) enhancements alleged
success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Only a brief factual and procedural background is necessary. The evidence at trial
established that, in the early morning hours on April 22, 2024, defendant arrived and
parked his car near the trailer in which Almon Chastain and his girlfriend, Griselda
Sandoval, lived. Defendant knew Sandoval, and Sandoval knew Chastain was jealous of
other men at the time. Chastain had also warned defendant to stay away from him
because of their mutual involvement in drugs.
Defendant knocked on the trailer door around 7:15 a.m. and Sandoval exited to
speak with him. When Chastain came to the trailer door, he engaged in a screaming
match with Sandoval, and, by his own admission, Chastain pushed defendant, punched
him, and kicked him. Chastain threatened defendant and followed him to defendant’s car.
As defendant stood behind his car door, Chastain slammed the door on defendant’s leg.
Sandoval testified at trial that Chastain had something in his hand when he earlier
followed defendant to the car, but threw the object towards the trailer on the way; in
earlier testimony, Sandoval had said the object was a pair of scissors, but she was not sure
at the time of trial. In her police interview, Sandoval told the officer that Chastain had a
metal object in his hand when he exited the trailer and that he struck defendant in the
chest before also throwing the object at defendant.
3
After Chastain slammed the car door on defendant’s leg, defendant reached inside
the vehicle, retrieved a loaded firearm, and fired several shots. Two bullets struck
Chastain, one on his hand and one on his side. He was hospitalized and had to have
surgery for the wounds.
The jury was instructed on self-defense as a defense to the assault with a firearm
charge. (CALCRIM Nos. 875, 3470, 3474.) The trial court was initially inclined to grant
defendant’s request to also instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 2514, which the court
summarized as “basically self-defense as to felon in possession.” After reviewing the
factors enumerated in the instruction, the court declined to give the instruction. The court
explained: “[L]ooking at it now, [factor] number three said ‘The firearm became
available to the defendant without plan or preparation.’ ” Denying the instruction, the
court elaborated that no evidence suggested, for instance, that “the firearm was
introduced to the situation by the alleged vicim, as opposed to [by] the defendant.”
At closing, the prosecutor argued that the felon in possession offenses were
complete when defendant possessed a loaded gun in his car, before he ever knocked on
the trailer door. Defense counsel did not present any argument on counts 2 or 3, focusing
instead on count 1.
APPEAL AND REVIEW
Following the verdict, sentencing, and entry of judgment as noted supra,
defendant appealed. This court appointed appellate counsel. Counsel’s review of the
record and legal research uncovered no arguable issues to raise on appeal, including after
consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching that conclusion, counsel noted
4
two questions for our potential consideration in our independent review: Did the trial
court err by denying defendant’s request for a felon-in-possession self-defense
instruction? If so, was the error prejudicial?
Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied
defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no issue
of arguable merit on appeal exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, finding no arguable issues on appeal following an independent review of the record.
Issues
Did the trial court err by denying the defendant's request for a felon-in-possession self-defense instruction?
Was the denial of the self-defense instruction prejudicial?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“On appeal, our independent review of the record and the law discloses no issues of arguable merit on which to request briefing by the parties.”
“Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no issue of arguable merit on appeal exists.”