People v. Mays CA2/1 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/3/21 P. v. Mays CA2/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    THE PEOPLE,                                                    B307884
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. MA072512)
    v.
    ARNET IRVING MAYS, JR.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Shannon Knight, Judge. Affirmed.
    Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ___________________________________
    On February 10, 2017, Arnet Mays fired three shots with a
    rifle at three people. He was convicted by a jury of three counts
    of willful, premeditated and deliberate attempted murder, three
    corresponding counts of assault with a firearm, and one count of
    shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, and the jury found true
    that he personally discharged a firearm and committed the
    offenses to benefit a criminal street gang. The court sentenced
    Mays to 105 years to life in prison.
    On appeal, we reversed one of the attempted murder
    convictions and remanded the matter for retrial or re-sentencing
    on that count. (People v. Mays (Apr. 3, 2020, B291995) [nonpub.
    opn.].) Upon remand, the prosecution announced it was unable to
    proceed with a retrial, and the trial court dismissed one
    attempted murder count.
    The court re-sentenced Mays to state prison for two
    consecutive life terms on the remaining attempted murder
    counts, imposed a 20 year term for the firearm enhancements
    (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (c))1 and the minimum 15 year term
    for the gang enhancements on each of those counts, and ordered
    the terms and enhancements on the corresponding assault counts
    to be stayed pursuant to section 654. The court also imposed but
    stayed prison terms on count 4, shooting at a moving vehicle, and
    the gun and gang enhancements to that count. The court
    indicated it was aware of its discretion to strike the gang and
    firearm enhancements, but stated that to do so would not be in
    the interest of justice.
    As to the assault count corresponding to the now-dismissed
    attempted murder charge, the court imposed a consecutive
    1   Undesignated statutory references will be to the Penal
    Code.
    2
    middle term of three years plus a consecutive 10 year term for
    the gang enhancement (§ 186.22 (b)(1) (C)) and a four year term
    for the firearm enhancement, for a total aggregate sentence of 87
    years to life.
    The court subsequently recalled the above sentence and
    modified it as follows: As to the three counts of assault with a
    firearm, the court imposed a consecutive high term of four years
    in state prison plus a consecutive high term of 10 years for the
    firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)). The court
    stayed the terms and enhancements on two of those counts
    (§ 654), and also stayed the gang enhancement (§ 1170.1, subd.
    (f)), resulting in an aggregate sentence of 84 years to life.
    Mays appeals.
    We appointed counsel to represent Mays on appeal. After
    examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening
    brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record
    independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , 441-442.)
    On June 8, 2021, we sent letters to Mays and appointed counsel,
    directing counsel to forward the appellate record to Mays and
    advising him that within 30 days he could personally submit any
    contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. He has not
    responded.
    We have examined the entire record and find no arguable
    issue exists, and are therefore satisfied Mays’s attorney complied
    with the responsibilities Wende imposes.
    3
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    CHANEY, J.
    We concur:
    BENDIX, Acting P. J.
    CRANDALL, J.*
    *Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court,
    assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
    the California Constitution.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B307884

Filed Date: 9/3/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/3/2021