Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Brumfield CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B347311
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA153257)
v.
RAMAJE ERICEK BRUMFIELD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Ramaje Ericek Brumfield appeals the sentence imposed
following his conviction by no contest plea of two counts of
possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code,1 § 30605, subd. (a),
counts 7 & 8.) This case comes before us for review under the
procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).
In an information filed on October 4, 2021, Brumfield was
charged with two counts of murder (§ 187, subd. (a), counts 1 &
2), three counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664,
counts 3, 4 & 5), and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd.
(a)(1), count 9), in connection with an October 15, 2020 shooting.
It was alleged as to counts 3, 4, and 5, that the attempted
murders were committed willfully, deliberately, and with
premeditation. Brumfield was charged with carrying a loaded
unregistered handgun (§ 25850, subd. (a), count 6) and possession
of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a), count 7) in connection
with a second incident that took place on November 23, 2020.
Finally, Brumfield was charged with possession of an assault
weapon on December 8, 2020. (§ 30605, subd. (a), count 8.)
On October 18, 2021, defense counsel declared a doubt as to
Brumfield’s competency to stand trial. The court found
substantial evidence of incompetency and suspended criminal
proceedings. On October 11, 2022, the court found Brumfield
competent to stand trial and recommenced proceedings.
On October 12, 2022, Brumfield requested to proceed in pro
per. The court informed Brumfield that it would appoint a
psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate him and then determine
whether he was competent to represent himself.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
On November 21, 2022, defense counsel informed the court
that Brumfield wanted the court to discharge her as his attorney
and appoint new counsel. On February 1, 2023, the court heard
and denied Brumfield’s motion to discharge appointed counsel.
On March 15, 2023, the court heard and denied Brumfield’s
second motion to discharge appointed counsel.
On May 15, 2024, Brumfield filed a motion pursuant to
section 1538.5 to suppress evidence seized on November 23, 2020.
On May 21, 2024, the People filed an amended information
adding factors in aggravation pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 4.421.
On May 22, 2024, the People filed an opposition to the
motion to suppress evidence, and Brumfield filed an addendum to
the motion to suppress to include evidence seized on November 5,
2020.
Also on May 22, 2024, the court held a hearing pertaining
to the evidence seized on November 23, 2020. Los Angeles Police
Department Officer Carlos Gonzalez testified that at
approximately 7:50 p.m. on November 23, 2020, he encountered a
black Infiniti with its lights off parked in the middle of the road
blocking traffic. Brumfield was standing by the open door of the
vehicle. Minor R.F. was standing by an open door on the back
passenger-side of the car.
Officer Gonzalez testified that the vehicle posed a traffic
hazard, so he and his partner Officer John Byun made contact
with Brumfield and R.F. Brumfield reached into the front
passenger compartment as the officers approached him. Officer
Gonzalez could not see what Brumfield was doing, but suspected
that Brumfield might be moving contraband. Officer Gonzalez
asked Brumfield who owned the vehicle. Brumfield answered
3
that the Infiniti belonged to his cousin. Brumfield closed the
open doors of the vehicle. Officer Gonzalez attempted to detain
Brumfield, but Brumfield broke loose. The officer gave chase, but
he soon observed that Brumfield’s hands were empty. He
surmised that Brumfield was running because there was
something in the vehicle.
Officer Gonzalez returned to the Infiniti and detained R.F.
Because the vehicle was locked and creating a traffic hazard, the
officers contacted dispatch to arrange a police garage tow.
Without the car doors being opened, Officer Gonzalez looked into
the front passenger compartment and observed a rifle that was
partially covered by a sweater on the Infiniti’s front passenger
seat.
When the tow truck arrived, officers unlocked the vehicle.
Officer Gonzalez observed Officer Niemeyer recover the rifle from
the front passenger compartment of the Infiniti; Officer Niemeyer
unloaded the rifle of 30 live rounds. Officer Gonzalez also
observed Officer Byun recover a 0.9 millimeter firearm from the
driver compartment. Officer Gonzalez recovered a DMV printout
of a driver’s permit with Brumfield’s information on it from the
glovebox.
Officer Gonzalez testified that it is standard procedure to
impound a car under these conditions. It is also standard to
perform an inventory search prior to impounding a vehicle. If a
firearm is discovered, officers will continue to search the vehicle
to determine whether other firearms are present and remove
them prior to towing.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence
discovered in the November 23, 2020 search of the Infiniti. The
court found that a warrant was not required. The court
4
explained that the car was a traffic hazard, so the police had
probable cause to investigate. The rifle was in plain view, and
the pistol would have inevitably been discovered in an inventory
search.
On May 30, 2024, the People filed an opposition to the
addendum to the motion to suppress evidence seized on
November 5, 2020.
Also on May 30, 2024, the court held a hearing pertaining
to the motion to suppress evidence seized on November 5, 2020.
Officer Gonzalez testified that on November 5, 2020, at
approximately 6:50 p.m., he and three other officers encountered
Brumfield and three other individuals, who the officers suspected
were trespassing. Officer Gonzalez attempted to complete a field
identification card for Brumfield. Brumfield provided the officer
with his name and birthdate, but when the officer attempted to
verify Brumfield’s identity, the search did not return any
information. Officer Gonzalez notified Brumfield that he was
trespassing. He advised Brumfield that he believed Brumfield
provided false identification information. The officers handcuffed
Brumfield and put him in the back seat of their patrol car.
On cross-examination, Officer Gonzalez testified that he
knew Brumfield was a suspect in a murder case before he
contacted Brumfield on November 5, 2020. During the detention
on November 5, 2020, Officer Gonzalez instructed Brumfield to
lift his shirt and move his sleeves so he could look for tattoos.
Brumfield had tattoos of his mother, sister, and grandfather.
Brumfield did not admit to being a gang member, but Officer
Gonzalez indicated on the field identification card that Brumfield
was a Grape Street Crip gang member because the officer knew
the individuals that Brumfield was with were gang members.
5
The trial court granted the motion to suppress with respect
to the field identification card, but denied with respect to
personal observations Officer Gonzalez made before he detained
Brumfield.
On June 3, 2024, Brumfield pleaded no contest in an open
plea in counts 7 and 8 for two counts of possession of an assault
weapon. (§ 30605, subd. (a).) Brumfield also admitted an
aggravating factor pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
4.421, subdivision (b)(1).
On June 4, 2024, the People announced unable to proceed
on the remaining counts, but informed the trial court that the
prosecution intended to re-file the case under a different case
number that afternoon. The People explained that the field
identification card and evidence connected to it that the court had
ordered suppressed were central to the prosecution’s case. The
court dismissed the charges pursuant to section 1382.
The People refiled the charges in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
9, in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24CMCF01048.
On June 9, 2025, the trial court pronounced sentence both
in the present case (Case No. TA153257) and in case No.
24CMCF01048. In case No. 24CMCF01048, the court imposed a
determinate term of two years plus 50 years to life. In the
present case, the court imposed two eight-month terms for the
two counts of possession of an assault weapon; the court ordered
the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence in case No.
24CMCF01048.
Brumfield timely filed a notice of appeal, appealing the
sentence in this case. The instant appeal is not taken from Case
No. 24CMCF01048; that case is the subject of a separate appeal.
We appointed counsel.
6
Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of this case, raising no
issues, and requesting that we independently review the record.
On July 6, 2026, we advised Brumfield by letter that he had 30
days to submit any contentions or issues he wished for us to
consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record to identify issues that
do not affect the validity of the plea. We are satisfied no such
arguable issues exist and that Brumfield’s counsel has fully
satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins
(2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
7