People v. Yancey CA5 ( 2024 )

Filed 6/4/24 P. v. Yancey CA5
(unmodified opinion attached)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
F087389
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. F21906770)
v.
TAEVION KAMARIMARQUIS YANCEY, ORDER MODIFYING
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
(NO CHANGE IN
JUDGMENT)
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 3, 2024, be modified as follows:
1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph at the top of page 4.
2. Insert the following new paragraph between the first and second paragraphs
at the top of page 4:
In response to our invitation, Yancey filed a
supplemental letter brief on May 6, 2024, which we have read
and considered. However, he presents no issues that would
warrant relief on appeal.
This modification does not change the judgment.
SNAUFFER, J.
LEVY, Acting P. J.
DE SANTOS, J.
Filed 6/3/24 P. v. Yancey 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
F087389
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. F21906770)
v.
TAEVION KAMARIMARQUIS YANCEY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Charles J.
Lee, Judge.
Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and De Santos, J.
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
This appeal is from a final judgment of conviction following a guilty plea. It is
authorized by Penal Code section 1237.5.1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 24, 2021, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Yancey with
attempted premeditated murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1), attempted kidnapping for
carjacking (§ 664/209.5, subd. (a); count 2), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 3),
carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 4), and carrying a
concealed firearm (§ 25400, subd. (a)(2); count 5).
An enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b))2 was alleged
as to counts 1, 2, and 3. Criminal street gang enhancements were alleged as to all five
counts (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1) [counts 1, 2, 4 & 5] & (b)(4)(B) [count 3]). An active
gang participant enhancement was alleged as to counts 4 and 5 (§§ 25850, subd. (c)(3),
25400, subd. (c)(3)). It was also alleged as an enhancement to count 4 that Yancey was
not the registered owner of the firearm (§ 25850, subd. (c)(6)).
At the arraignment on December 16, 2021, Yancey pleaded not guilty to all counts
and denied all enhancements.
The preliminary hearing was rescheduled multiple times at the request of
Yancey’s counsel as plea negotiations were ongoing. Finally, on September 21, 2023, a
change of plea hearing was held. After being advised of and waiving his constitutional
rights, Yancey pleaded no contest to attempted murder without premeditation (count 1)3
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2 The firearm enhancement to count 1 was originally alleged under
section 12022.53, subdivision (d), but was changed to a subdivision (b) enhancement at
the change of plea hearing on September 21, 2023.
3 The complaint had originally alleged premeditation, but the trial court amended
the complaint by interlineation to delete it on September 21, 2023.
3.
and admitted an aggravating factor (great bodily injury). He admitted the firearm
allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). On the People’s motion, the court dismissed the
remaining counts and allegations, along with two unrelated cases, reserving a right to
comment. There was a stipulated factual basis for the plea based on People v. West
(1970) 3 Cal.3d 995.
On October 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced Yancey to the stipulated sentence
of 19 years, consisting of the aggravated term of 9 years for attempted murder and 10
years, consecutive, for the personal firearm use enhancement.
On December 19, 2023, Yancey timely filed a notice of appeal, with a request for
a certificate of probable cause, which was granted the same day.
STATEMENT OF FACTS4
On August 20, 2021, a large crowd was leaving the Central High School stadium
in Fresno after a football game. In the parking lot, 19-year-old Yancey, walked up to
another young man, 19-year-old D.F., and pointed a gun at him. Yancey fired three
shots, D.F. fell down, and Yancey fired a fourth shot.
Police officers present in their patrol car in the parking lot got out and ran toward
Yancey, pointing their guns at him. Yancey ran out of the lot and jumped into the back
seat of a parked vehicle. The driver was a 55-year-old-woman and the passenger was her
13-year-old granddaughter. Yancey yelled at the woman to drive and the vehicle began
moving slowly. When the police ordered it to stop, the woman and the girl got out and
ran away. The vehicle kept moving until it came to a stop at the center median. The
officers found Yancey in the backseat with his hands up and arrested him.
The gun, which was recovered from the floor of the vehicle, was a privately
manufactured “ghost gun” with no serial number. It was loaded with six .40-caliber
rounds and equipped with a laser sight.
4 Facts are taken from the October 24, 2023, probation officer’s report.
4.
D.F. sustained one gunshot wound each to his right arm, left leg, left shoulder,
right shoulder, and one rib. He denied knowing who shot him.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Yancey’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes
the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record
independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also
includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Yancey was advised he could file
his own brief with this court. By letter on April 19, 2024, we invited Yancey to submit
additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Yancey.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
5.