Filed 10/23/26 P. v. Blakely 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E086801
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2100112)
STEPHON BLAKELY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Johnnetta E. Anderson,
Judge. Affirmed.
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
1
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Stephon Blakely appeals the judgment after a jury
convicted him of four felonies and one misdemeanor and found true two firearm
enhancements. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by amended information with murder (Pen. Code1, § 187,
subd. (a), count 1), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b), count 2),
possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 3), possession of an
assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a), count 4), misdemeanor possession of a large-capacity
magazine (§ 32310, subd. (a), count 5). As to count 1, the amended information alleged
that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing death. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d) &
1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) As to count 2, the amended information alleged that he personally
used a firearm. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The amended information
alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1) &
1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and also alleged three aggravating factors.
On August 12, 2025, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts and found the
murder in count 1 to be in the second degree. The jury also found the firearm
enhancement allegations to be true.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
indicated.
2
Defendant requested the court to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d)
firearm enhancement and the prior strike conviction.
In a bifurcated hearing, the court found the prior strike to be not true, since
defendant was under the age of 16 at the time of the offense. The court found true the
aggravating factors.
The court then declined defendant’s request to strike or reduce the firearm
enhancement, concluding that it would not be in the interest of justice in light of his
lengthy criminal history and the fact that, after he committed the murder in the instant
case, defendant went to another state and committed another felony with a firearm. The
court sentenced defendant to a total term of four years plus 40 years to life in state prison.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and S.B. met and went on a few dates. S.B. had known N.H. (the
victim) since they were kids, since their families were friends. S.B. referred to the victim
as her cousin. Defendant told S.B. that he needed help selling drugs, and S.B. called the
victim, who said he needed extra money. On or around October 5, 2019, defendant and
S.B. drove out to Hemet to meet with the victim. They picked him up and drove to a
park. Defendant and the victim smoked marijuana and discussed selling some narcotics
together. The victim agreed to help defendant. Defendant, S.B., and the victim left the
park and drove to a Travelodge (the Travelodge). S.B. had to go to work at 3:00 p.m., so
they booked a room so defendant would have somewhere to stay. Defendant and S.B.
talked a few times during the day through FaceTime, while S.B. was at work. The last
3
time they talked was around midnight, when defendant told her “to tell [the victim] to get
away from the door.” S.B. tried to find out what was going on. Defendant said, “ ‘I’m
about to light your cousin up.’ ” Right after that, S.B. heard some loud popping sounds,
and the phone went dead. Sometime after that, defendant called S.B. back on FaceTime.
She could see that he was outside and “moving fast.” Defendant asked her to come and
pick him up. S.B. asked what happened to the victim. Defendant said he could not talk
and hung up. He then called back two or three times and had very short conversations
with her. The only thing he talked about was her picking him up.
A police officer responded to a call for shots fired at the Travelodge. When the
officer arrived, he observed the victim lying on his back in front of room 202. The victim
had multiple gunshot wounds and did not have a pulse. The paramedics arrived and
pronounced him dead. The victim did not have any knives or guns on him. The police
found four shell casings at the scene.
Another officer responded to the scene and viewed surveillance video from the
Travelodge. The footage showed that, at 12:39 a.m., the door to room 205 opened and
the victim was standing at the threshold of the door and “the door get[s] pushed against
him.” Then the video showed defendant punch the victim in the face or head area, and
the victim’s legs buckle. The victim went back to the doorway, and defendant pushed
him out of the room. The victim went back into the room, and there was a physical
altercation inside. The video then showed the door to room 205 pushed close with the
victim standing outside of it. Another person, S.W., appeared in the video, and it showed
4
him walk toward the room and talk to the victim. The victim’s back was against the door
to room 205. The video showed defendant open the door and point a firearm toward
S.W., then turn and point it toward the victim. The video showed a muzzle flash come
out of the barrel of the gun. Then defendant proceeded to run southbound through the
parking lot and out of the camera’s view.
On October 12, 2019, a police officer was dispatched to a mobile home park near
the Travelodge, where someone had found a Masterpiece Arms nine-millimeter firearm.
The firearm had a threaded barrel, which allowed a silencer to be added to the end of it.
The officer took the firearm to the police station. A criminalist analyzed the firearm and
determined that the shell casings found at the Travelodge were fired from the
Masterpiece Arms nine-millimeter firearm that was found at the mobile home park. The
criminalist testified at trial that the firearm was a semiautomatic weapon, and with the
threaded barrel, it qualified as an assault weapon in California. She also testified that the
magazine held over 10 rounds, which California defined as a large-capacity magazine.
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 several potential arguable issues: (1) whether there was substantial evidence
to support the conviction in count 1; (2) whether there was substantial evidence to
support the conviction in count 2; (3) whether there was substantial evidence to support
5
the conviction in count 3; (4) whether there was substantial evidence to support the
conviction in count 4; (5) whether there was substantial evidence to support the
conviction in count 5; (6) whether the court abused its discretion in ruling that a forensic
pathologist could not testify about the effects of the drugs found in the victim’s2 system
on his behavior; (7) whether the court abused its discretion in determining that dismissal
or reduction of the firearm enhancement would not be in the interest of justice; and
(8) whether the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms when the
probation officer recommended that it impose concurrent terms. Counsel has also
requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
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
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
2 The opening brief mistakenly refers to someone named “Hughes” on this issue;
however, defense counsel’s request was for the court to allow the pathologist to testify
about the drugs in the victim’s system.
6
CODRINGTON
J.
7