People v. Brim CA2/3 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/22/22 P. v. Brim CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
    THE PEOPLE,                                               B315433
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                        Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. TA154169
    v.
    EDDIE BRIM,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Sean D. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.
    Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court
    of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    _________________________
    In 2021, the People charged Eddie Brim with injuring
    a girlfriend, criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon
    (a knife), kidnapping, and false imprisonment by violence.
    The alleged victim in all five counts was Jennifer V. The
    People alleged Brim had three prior strikes: for voluntary
    manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and robbery.
    At the preliminary hearing, Jennifer V. testified that
    on April 4, 2021, she and Brim—her boyfriend of two years—
    went to a liquor store. Jennifer’s cousin Malikah went with
    them. Jennifer and Brim had broken up, and they started
    arguing about their relationship. When they were driving
    home from the store, Brim pulled the car over and pulled
    Jennifer’s hair.
    In her testimony, Jennifer seemed to be minimizing
    the incident, claiming Brim didn’t pull her hair “that hard”
    and professing not to remember details. She admitted, however,
    that she’d gone to the hospital that day and she’d told police
    officers Brim had punched her in the head with closed fists.
    Jennifer suffered a black eye and “an open wound,” requiring
    one stitch. At the preliminary hearing nearly four months later,
    the court stated it could see a scar under Jennifer’s left eye.
    Jennifer told police she’d gotten out of the car at the
    liquor store and tried to run away. She admitted that at one
    point she was screaming for help. She told police that, when
    she got out of the car, Brim grabbed her and pushed her against
    a gate. Jennifer admitted she’d told police that Brim had pulled
    out a knife, but then answered “[n]o” to the question, “[D]id
    the defendant pull out a knife?” Jennifer admitted telling police
    that Brim had applied pressure with the knife against her throat.
    2
    The People introduced a photograph Jennifer’s mother
    had taken of her that day.
    Los Angeles Police Department Officer Kyle Heskett also
    testified at the preliminary hearing. Heskett had spoken with
    Jennifer V. on April 4, 2021, in the parking lot of the hospital.
    She had visible injuries: a black eye and the left side of her face
    around the cheekbone was swollen. Jennifer had “bruising
    to her face” and “three cuts to the left side of her neck as well
    as a laceration on her left cheek.”
    Jennifer told Heskett that Brim had “struck her multiple
    times with both his hands to her head,” face, and chin. Jennifer
    tried to flee but Brim “chased her down and then grabbed her
    by the hair and dragged her back to the car.” Brim and Malikah
    “got into a verbal argument” and Brim “kicked [Malikah] out
    of the car.”
    Brim then drove to another area. Jennifer tried to get out
    of the car and “screamed for help.” She went out one of the back
    doors of the car. Brim tried to grab her; she pushed him against
    a wall. Brim then pulled out a knife and put it to Jennifer’s
    throat. He said, “ ‘Get in the car or I’ll kill you.’ ” Brim made
    cutting motions with the knife on Jennifer’s throat and leg.
    On September 14, 2021, Brim entered into a plea
    agreement with the People. He pleaded no contest to the
    kidnapping count for an agreed-upon sentence of the midterm
    of five years. The court explained to Brim that the maximum
    possible sentence on the charge, with the prior strikes, was
    25 years to life. Brim said he understood and wanted to accept
    the People’s offer. The court dismissed the remaining four counts
    and the prior strike allegations on the People’s motion.
    3
    On September 20, 2021, Brim filed a handwritten
    document entitled, “CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE;
    PENAL CODE SECTION 1237-1237.5 (NOTICE OF APPEAL).”
    Brim did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the
    superior court.
    We appointed counsel to represent Brim on appeal.
    After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief
    raising no issues and asking this court independently to review
    the record under People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).
    Counsel stated he had advised Brim that he could file a
    supplemental brief within 30 days. On June 13, 2022, we sent
    Brim a letter telling him the same thing. We have not received
    any supplemental brief from Brim.
    Because he pleaded no contest to the kidnapping charge,
    Brim could not appeal his judgment of conviction without
    complying with the requirements of Penal Code section 1237.5.
    (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v.
    Earls (1992) 
    10 Cal.App.4th 184
    , 188, 190, 193–194 [purpose of
    section 1237.5 is to avoid frivolous appeals; because notice did
    not include required statement showing permissible ground
    of appeal under statute, appeal was dismissed].) He has not
    complied with either of those requirements.
    Notwithstanding this failure, we have independently
    reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. We are satisfied
    that Brim’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities
    and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 109–110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
    4
    DISPOSITION
    We affirm Eddie Brim’s conviction.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    EGERTON, J.
    We concur:
    EDMON, P. J.
    LAVIN, J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B315433

Filed Date: 9/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2022