People v. Dean CA5

Filed 1/18/23 P. v. Dean CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F084227 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F17903952) v.

JAMES RYAN DEAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary R. Orozco, Judge. John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.

Appellant James Ryan Dean’s second appeal is pending before us, following a remand in Dean I for sentencing issues.1 Appellant’s counsel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not file a response. As discussed herein, we modify the judgment to reflect imposition of the middle term of four years rather than six years under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a), stayed.2 (§ 1260.) We also order correction of errors in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89.) We otherwise find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues, and we affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In July 2017, appellant’s fiancée, D.P., was raising her young granddaughter, A.S. During a domestic dispute between D.P., her former husband, and their adult daughter concerning A.S., appellant shot and killed D.P.’s former husband. The jury rejected the prosecution’s theory that the murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated, but convicted appellant of second degree murder on September 28, 2018. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (b).) The jury also found that in committing a felony, appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death and he personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant admitted he suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law and served two prior prison terms. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667.5, subd. (b).)