California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 2014 No. D063884Unpublished
Filed 3/25/14 P. v. Bryant CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D063884
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS256936)
DEON LASHAWN BRYANT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
Tony Faryar Farmani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Deon Lashawn Bryant appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for 29 years
to life after he pled guilty to murder and robbery and admitted a personal firearm use
allegation. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that pointed out
discrepancies among the oral pronouncement of judgment, the sentencing minutes, and
the abstract of judgment, and also identified three issues upon which he requested our
independent review. A supplemental clerk's transcript filed after counsel submitted his
brief indicates the discrepancies have been corrected by the trial court, and after
reviewing the record, we discern no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The People charged Bryant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and robbery
(id., § 211) and alleged he personally used a firearm in the commission of both offenses
(id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)). The People also alleged Bryant, who was 17 years old when
he committed the offenses, was 16 years of age or older at that time, so that he could be
tried as an adult in criminal court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subds. (b)(1), (3), (17),
(d)(1).)
At the preliminary hearing, Bryant admitted he was 16 years or older when he
committed the charged offenses. The magistrate found the evidence was sufficient to
bind Bryant over for trial on the murder and robbery charges as well as the allegations he
personally used a firearm in committing the offenses.
Bryant pled guilty to murder and robbery and admitted the associated firearm use
allegations. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Bryant to prison as follows:
for the murder, 25 years to life (Pen. Code, § 190, subd. (a)), plus a consecutive term of
four years for the attached firearm use enhancement (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)); and for
2
the robbery, three years (id., § 213, subd. (a)(2)), plus a consecutive term of four years for
the attached firearm use enhancement (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)). The court ordered a
stay of execution of the prison terms imposed for the robbery conviction and its attached
enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The sentencing minutes, however,
stated that concurrent prison terms were imposed for the robbery conviction and its
attached enhancement, and the abstract of judgment did not state execution of those
prison terms was stayed.
After counsel filed his brief, we received a supplemental clerk's transcript that
contains copies of an order amending the sentencing minutes and an amended abstract of
judgment. The sentencing minutes and the abstract of judgment now state that execution
of the prison terms imposed for the robbery conviction and its attached firearm use
enhancement has been stayed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, but asked this
court to correct the discrepancy between the sentence the court imposed at the sentencing
hearing and the sentence recorded in the minutes and on the abstract of judgment, and to
review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to
Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel suggested the following issues: (1) "Did the trial
court lack jurisdiction to try Bryant as an adult because it did not expressly make certain
necessary findings at the preliminary hearing?"; (2) "Was Bryant entitled to a fitness
hearing pursuant to [Penal Code] section 1170.17 before being sentenced as an adult?";
3
and (3) "Did the trial court have discretion to strike or stay the sentencing for the gun use
allegation under [Penal Code] section 12022.5?" After we received counsel's brief, we
notified Bryant by letter that he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.
The discrepancies among the oral pronouncement of judgment, the sentencing
minutes, and the abstract of judgment have been corrected by the trial court. We have
reviewed the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386
U.S. 738, and considered the issues suggested by counsel, but discerned no reasonably
arguable appellate issues. Bryant has been adequately represented by counsel on this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
4
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues following an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California.
Issues
Did the trial court lack jurisdiction to try Bryant as an adult because it did not expressly make certain necessary findings at the preliminary hearing?
Was Bryant entitled to a fitness hearing pursuant to section 1170.17 before being sentenced as an adult?
Did the trial court have discretion to strike or stay the sentencing for the gun use allegation under section 12022.5?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“after reviewing the record, we discern no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.”
“The discrepancies among the oral pronouncement of judgment, the sentencing minutes, and the abstract of judgment have been corrected by the trial court.”