People v. Deanda CA3

Filed 11/27/23 P. v. Deanda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097848

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE019416)

v.

ROBERT DEANDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal after remand for resentencing. Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Deanda has 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.) Having done so, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are set forth in our unpublished opinion in People v. Deanda (Jan. 31, 2022, C089940) (nonpub. opn.) and need not be recounted here.1 It suffices to say that defendant participated in a shooting involving three Norteño subsets, two of which were closely aligned and were rivals with the third subset. (Ibid.) A shootout between the rival groups resulted in the death of one of defendant’s cohorts. (Ibid.) Defendant was charged with three counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm (counts one, three, and four), one count of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (count two), and one count of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony (count five). With respect to each of these counts, the prosecution alleged criminal street gang enhancements. The prosecution also alleged personal use of a firearm enhancements with respect to the assault charges. Finally, the prosecution alleged defendant had served a prior prison term for a 2014 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, which constituted a prior strike within the meaning of the three strikes law and also qualified him for a prior serious felony enhancement. A jury found defendant guilty of counts one and five as charged; with respect to count two, the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of shooting a firearm in a grossly negligent manner.2 The jury found the personal use of a firearm and gang enhancements not true. In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted the prior strike and prior prison term allegations. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to