People v. Love CA3

Filed 5/27/21 P. v. Love CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092437

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 15F06950 & 14F06720) v.

DAEVON JAMELL LOVE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Daevon Jamell Love was convicted of multiple assault counts against four different victims as well as shooting at an occupied vehicle and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Various firearm enhancements were found true as was an enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction. We affirmed defendant’s convictions on appeal (People v. Love (Apr. 25, 2019, C084190) [nonpub. opn.] (Love)), but remanded the matter for the trial court to exercise newly granted discretion to strike one or more of the firearm enhancements and the prior serious felony enhancement based on changes in the law that took effect while defendant’s appeal was pending. Upon remand,

1

the trial court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the enhancements, leaving defendant’s 30-year 4-month prison sentence unchanged. Defendant appealed and appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We conclude defendant is not entitled to a Wende review and will dismiss the appeal as abandoned. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As set forth in our prior opinion (Love, supra, C084190), in July 2014, J.L. complained to management at his apartment complex that defendant was smoking marijuana in the common area. A few weeks later, defendant and his friends attacked J.L., hitting and kicking him as he went to retrieve something from his car. In September 2014, J.L. saw defendant sitting in a car with a gun. In November 2015, T.R. and his wife, J.F., were pulling out of a parking spot after shopping at a market when T.R. honked to alert a car that was backing up at the same time. As T.R. drove away, the same car almost hit him, so he honked again. Someone in the car fired two shots at T.R.’s car, striking a passing pedestrian, P.G. A short time later, defendant was apprehended nearby standing near a car matching the description of the car involved in the shooting. He tested positive for gunshot residue and had the keys to the suspect vehicle in his pocket where officers located a live bullet behind the driver’s seat; officers also located a loaded nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol behind the left front tire of a nearby SUV. T.R. and J.F. subsequently identified defendant as the shooter. The matters were consolidated and defendant was charged with assault on J.L. likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),1 two counts of being a