People v. Carr CA3

Filed 11/21/22 P. v. Carr CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C090713

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE000588)

v.

RADARRYL CARR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Radarryl Carr appeals a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of negligent discharge of a firearm, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and that he had suffered a prior strike and a prior serious felony conviction. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that insufficient evidence supports his negligent discharge of a firearm conviction. We disagree. Nonetheless, our review of the record has disclosed the trial court’s failure to impose mandatory fees per count as required. We will modify the judgment to correct this error and will affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The People’s second amended information charged defendant with felony negligent discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a); count one; statutory

1

section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated ) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count two). The information further alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667 subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and four prior prison commitments (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At trial, the People presented evidence that on November 27, 2018, the ShotSpotter system alerted to gunshots in South Sacramento at three different times: 10:43 p.m., 11:03 p.m., and 11:32 p.m. The system triangulates gunfire and provides an approximate location of gunfire. When officers responded to the last alert, they saw a black Infinity sedan parked with one person in the driver’s seat and three people near the back of the car. As reflected in dashcam and bodycam footage played for the jury as well as officer testimony, once officers activated the overhead lights on the patrol car, the smallest of the group, who had dreadlocks and was wearing blue jeans and a blue hoodie, fled toward the side fence of 8160 Essen Way. The fleeing person jumped the fence and officers did not follow for safety reasons; they instead requested backup. One officer thought he heard the fleeing person jump the back fence. Officers spoke with the three individuals still at the scene and found that none of them had weapons. One of the three was defendant’s longtime girlfriend, Latisha Collins, who owned and was driving the Infinity sedan. Collins had been out of town that day and had left the Infinity parked on Essen Way. A search of the car revealed paperwork belonging to defendant and a records check yielded a photograph of defendant, which allowed officers to positively identify defendant as the individual who had fled that night. That defendant was the individual in the blue sweatshirt was further confirmed by a photograph from that night discovered on a cell found at the Essen Way location. A later search of the home at 8160 Essen Way and the people at that location, turned up no weapons or ammunition. However, it appeared defendant had been staying