People v. Vargas CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 P. v. Vargas CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B333227
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PA099832
v.
AMADEO VARGAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed.
Maura F. Thorpe, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm. Statutory citations are
to the Penal Code.
In February 2023, an anonymous caller tipped off the police
that Amadeo Vargas had been discharging a firearm in and
around his family home. The police arrested Vargas shortly
thereafter.
At Vargas’s first court appearance, his attorney declared a
doubt as to his mental competence. The court suspended
criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368, and ordered
Vargas transferred to the mental health division for examination
and hearing.
Dr. Rebecca Najera examined Vargas and found him
competent. Based on Najera’s report, the mental health court
found Vargas competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal
proceedings.
Vargas’s attorney declared a doubt as to his competence for
a second time, and requested a long form report. The court
granted counsel’s request and again suspended criminal
proceedings under section 1368 and ordered Vargas transferred
to the mental health division for examination and hearing.
Dr. Haseeb Haroon examined Vargas, found him
competent, and prepared a long form report describing his
examination. Based on Haroon’s report, the mental health court
found Vargas competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal
proceedings.
After the preliminary hearing, an information charged
Vargas with two counts of discharge of a firearm with gross
negligence, in violation of section 246.3(a).
At the pre-trial hearing, the parties explained their efforts
to resolve the case. The prosecutor stated that if Vargas was
willing to go to a residential treatment facility for six months, he
was willing to offer a term of probation for three years. Without
2
treatment, the prosecution’s offer was a two-year term of
imprisonment. Vargas rejected the offer.
That same day, Vargas made an oral motion for new
counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The court
held a confidential hearing and denied the motion, stating: “[a]ll
we have is a situation where Mr. Vargas wants more attention
paid to his case, wants a trial faster than can realistically occur,
but that is not a basis to grant a Marsden motion. I find that
[counsel] has properly represented Mr. Vargas and will continue
to be able to represent him . . . .”
At trial, the prosecutor presented the testimony of four
witnesses: Vargas’s niece Xanthe Ramirez, Sergeant Ramiro
Gonzalez, Detective Frank De Perno, and Officer Steven Jimenez.
Ramirez testified about the events that led to Vargas’s
arrest. Vargas and Ramirez had lived in the same house along
with various other relatives, including Vargas’s parents, sister,
brother-in-law, another niece, and a great-niece. Ramirez first
observed Vargas with a gun in February 2023. She and her other
family members then began to hear loud noises that sounded like
gunshots. Ramirez filmed four videos of Vargas with the gun,
which she later provided to law enforcement. She testified that
she took these videos for “the family’s safety.” She observed
Vargas discharging the gun in the backyard and heard gunshots
coming from his bedroom.
A few days after Vargas obtained the gun, Ramirez
received a call from the police department. The police officer
Ramirez spoke to informed her that the police had received an
anonymous call about Vargas. The same day that Ramirez
received the call, the police arrested Vargas and Ramirez showed
3
police officers, including Jimenez, the bullet holes around the
property.
Gonzalez testified that he had reported to Vargas’s house
with a few other officers in response to a call about a man with a
gun. Upon arrival, Gonzalez observed Vargas holding a gun. The
officers told Vargas to put the gun down, and after a few minutes,
Vargas complied.
Next, De Perno testified that Vargas’s handgun was a semi-
automatic Sig Sauer P220 with a .45 caliber, a four-inch barrel,
and an eight-round magazine. De Perno also testified that if
someone used this type of handgun to shoot through the wall of a
house, the bullet was very likely to penetrate the wall and injure
someone.
Finally, Jimenez testified that he had also gone to Vargas
and Ramirez’s home in response to the call. As Jimenez walked
around the property, he observed multiple spent casings, which
indicated that someone had fired bullets. Jimenez also recovered
some ammunition from Vargas’s bedroom.
The jury deliberated for just over twenty minutes before
returning with a verdict. The jury found Vargas guilty of both
counts.
The court sentenced Vargas to a term of imprisonment of
two years for the first count, and eight months for the second
count, reasoning the middle term was appropriate in light of the
aggravating factors.
Vargas appealed from this sentence, and we appointed
counsel to represent him. Counsel examined the record and filed
an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review
the record independently under Wende. Vargas did not file a
supplemental brief.
4
We have examined the entire appellate record consisting of
the clerk’s transcript and reporter’s transcript, including the
sealed reporter’s transcript of the Marsden hearing. We are
satisfied that appointed counsel fully complied with her
responsibilities. There are no arguable appellate issues. (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
5