People v. Boukes CA4/2 ( 2021 )

Filed 9/13/21 P. v. Boukes CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E077058
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1600917)
NOY ESTUL BOUKES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On remand from this court, the trial court struck the prior prison term
enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b))1 and imposed but struck punishment on the
gang enhancements attached to counts 2 and 3 (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). After defense
counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel
has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and requesting
this court review the record for any potentially arguable issues. We affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
The People charged defendant with the first degree murder of victim No. 1 (Pen.
Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1), threatening victim No. 2 (§ 422, count 2), and falsely
imprisoning victim No. 2 (§ 236, count 3). The People also alleged that defendant
intentionally murdered victim No. 1 while defendant was an active member of a criminal
street gang. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22).) The People also alleged that defendant personally
discharged a firearm during the commission of the murder and proximately caused great
bodily injury or death (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) and that the offenses
in counts 2 and 3 were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association
with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). Finally, the People alleged
defendant suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior strike
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our nonpublished opinion from
defendant’s appeal of the original judgment. (People v. Boukes (Dec. 4, 2020, E072973)
[nonpub. opn.]; see Evid. Code, § 459.)
2
convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). (People v. Boukes,
supra, E072973.)
A jury found defendant guilty on all three counts and rendered true findings on all
sentencing allegations. In a separate proceeding, defendant admitted the three prior
prison term and the two prior strike conviction enhancements. The trial court sentenced
defendant to state prison for life without the possibility of parole for his conviction for
the special circumstance murder; an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the firearm
use enhancement and consecutive terms of 25 years to life for each of his convictions on
counts 2 and 3, for an indeterminate term of 75 years to life; and a determinate term of
three years for the three prior prison term enhancements. (People v. Boukes, supra,
E072973.)
Defendant appealed. We affirmed the judgment but remanded the matter so that
the trial court could impose or strike the gang enhancements on counts 2 and 3. (People
v. Boukes, supra, E072973.) We also directed the court to strike the three, one year prior
prison term enhancements. (Ibid.) On remand, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the
court struck the prior prison term enhancements and imposed but struck punishment on
the gang enhancements on counts 2 and 3.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
3
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
4