People v. Bridgeforth CA2/1

Filed 10/29/15 P. v. Bridgeforth CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B253224

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA119012) v.

GEORGE ELEX BRIDGEFORTH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael J. Shultz, Judge. Affirmed with directions. John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

George Elex Bridgeforth appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 192, subd. (a), 664) as a lesser included offense of attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246), felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)).1 The jury also found the special circumstance and firearm allegations true. Appellant admitted four prior strike convictions and one prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). He was sentenced to a determinate prison term of 15 years for the firearm and prior serious felony enhancements (§§ 12022.53, 667, subd. (a)(1)), followed by three consecutive indeterminate sentences of life without the possibility of parole and 50 years to life. Appellant contends (1) California’s felony-murder special circumstance rule (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) is unconstitutional because it fails to narrow the class of defendants eligible for special circumstance treatment; and (2) the abstract of judgment should be amended to delete the parole revocation fine. Appellant acknowledges that the California Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the felony-murder special circumstance rule, and recognizes that, under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, we are bound by the high court’s precedent. With regard to the second contention, as the Attorney General concedes, the abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the imposition of a parole revocation fine and must be amended by striking the fine. We affirm with directions to correct the abstract of judgment and prison records. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Prosecution Case Walter Shepard sold bottles of prescription cough syrup from his car. In April 2011, appellant started buying bottles of the medication from Shepard, which he resold at