People v. Barcklay CA3

Filed 1/20/23 P. v. Barcklay CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096793

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE005099)

v.

MARK EDWIN BARCKLAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

On March 7, 2019, defendant Mark Edwin Barcklay drove to the victim’s home and fired “the entire magazine of his 9mm Taurus handgun” into the home. He then disposed of the gun. The victim was struck by gunfire while lying in his bed. One of the bullets lodged in his spine, leaving him paralyzed. Defendant later admitted to police officers that he fired a gun at the house because he was “intoxicated” and “ ‘fed up’ with his home and son being shot at.” The People charged defendant with discharging a firearm into an inhabited dwelling and attempted murder. The People alleged defendant personally used a firearm,

1

discharged a firearm, and caused great bodily injury. The People also alleged multiple aggravating circumstances. On April 27, 2022, defendant entered a no contest plea to the attempted murder charge and admitted discharging a firearm; the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Defendant stipulated to a term of 27 years in state prison. The court awarded defendant 1,412 days of custody credit and ordered him to pay various fines and fees, including a restitution fine totaling $8,100, suspending a parole revocation fine of $8,100. Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.