People v. Vue CA5

Filed 1/31/24 P. v. Vue 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084811 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13909890) v.

BEE VUE, OPINION Appellant and Defendant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David Andrew Gottlieb, Judge. Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant and Defendant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Bee Vue contends on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to ask the court to dismiss appellant’s firearm enhancement in light of Senate Bill No. 81 (2021−2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1) (Senate Bill 81). We reject appellant’s claim and affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On October 18, 2013, appellant was charged in a complaint with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a),1 count 1), alleging that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) which caused death to the victim (Edgar Garcia) (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (§ 29820, subd. (b), count 2). It was further alleged that appellant had a prior strike conviction as a juvenile (§ 245, subd. (b), §§ 667, subds. (b)−(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)−(d)). On May 12, 2022, appellant entered into a plea agreement where he pled guilty to second degree murder (§ 187, count 1) and admitted that he personally used a firearm that resulted in great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that he had a prior strike conviction. As part of the plea agreement, the trial court indicated it would strike the prior strike conviction and that he would be sentenced to 15 years to life for second degree murder and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of 40 years to life in state prison. Appellant indicated that he understood the implications of his plea agreement, including the indicated sentence, had time to speak with his attorney, and accepted this plea agreement. FACTUAL SUMMARY Appellant shot Garcia as a result of an altercation because appellant felt he and his friends were being disrespected. Appellant’s sister said appellant confessed to her that he