People v. Quincy CA4/2 ( 2022 )

Filed 9/6/22 P. v. Quincy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E079018
v. (Super.Ct.No. INF1401247)
KEVIN JAMES QUINCY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Otis Sterling III, Judge.
Affirmed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Appellant.
1
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Kevin James Quincy pled
guilty to four counts of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187, counts
1-4), discharging a firearm at an inhabited house and an occupied vehicle (§ 246, count
6), and discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (§ 246, count 7). As to count 1, he
admitted the allegations that he personally discharged a firearm and caused great bodily
injury (GBI). (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) As to counts 6 and 7, he
admitted the allegation that he personally used a firearm. (§§ 667 & 1192.7,
subd. (c)(8).) A trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the agreed-upon term
of 19 years.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal “based on the sentence or other matters
occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.” We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 1, 2014, defendant was charged by information with four counts of
attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, counts 1-4), discharging a firearm from a
vehicle (§ 26100, subd. (c), count 5), discharging a firearm at an inhabited house and an
occupied vehicle (§ 246, count 6), discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (§ 246,
count 7), and unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), counts 8-9). The
information further alleged as to count 1 that defendant personally inflicted GBI
(§§ 12022.7, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) and personally discharged a firearm and
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2
caused GBI (§ 12022.53, subd. (d) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). As to counts 2 through 4, it
alleged that defendant personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c) &1192.7,
subd. (c)(8)). As to counts 5 through 7, the information alleged that defendant personally
used a firearm. (§§ 667 & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) It was further alleged that he served one
prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On April 28, 2022, the information was orally amended to strike the premeditation
allegations as to the attempted murder charges in counts 1 through 4, and to change the
firearm enhancement in count 1 from section 12022.53, subdivision (d), to section
12022.53, subdivision (b). Then, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to
counts 1 through 4, 6, and 7. He also admitted the firearm enhancements in count 1
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and counts 6 and 7 (§§ 667 & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The
remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. The court found a factual basis for the
plea. It then sentenced defendant to the upper term of nine years on count 1, plus a
consecutive 10 years on the firearm enhancement. The court imposed concurrent terms
on the remaining counts and allegations.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, 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 one potential arguable issue: whether the court sentenced him in accordance
with his plea bargain. Counsel has also requested that this court undertake a review of
the entire record.
3
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record, and we have found
no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL
J.
4