Filed 6/26/26 P. v. Helton CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D086123
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE427966)
v.
ROBERT HELTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michelle Ialeggio, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Robert Helton appeals a judgment of conviction after a jury found him
guilty of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1);
unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1);
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
count 2); unlawful possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305,
subd. (a)(1); count 3); and threatening a public officer (§ 71; count 4). The
jury returned true findings on allegations that Helton personally used a
firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7,
subd. (a)) in the commission of count 1. Further, Helton admitted two prior
strikes (§§ 667, subd. (b), 1192.7, subd. (c)) and two serious felony priors
(§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
The trial court struck the prior strikes and serious felony priors, and
sentenced Helton to an aggregate prison term of 10 years and four months,
which it calculated as follows: the low term of two years for count 1, plus four
years for the firearm enhancement, plus three years for the great-bodily-
injury enhancement, plus eight months consecutive (one-third the midterm)
for count 2, plus eight months stayed (one-third the midterm) for count 3,
plus eight months consecutive (one-third the midterm) for count 4. The court
awarded Helton 251 credits, including 219 actual credits and 32 conduct
credits. It also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)),
imposed and stayed a $10,000 parole/post-release community supervision
revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), and ordered Helton to pay a $160
court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $120 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov.
Code, § 70373), and victim restitution in an amount to be determined
(§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).
Helton’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no
arguable issues for reversal, but seeking our independent review of the record
under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed Helton of his right to
file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond. Based on our independent
2
review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
Shortly after 6:00 p.m., two men and a woman drove a gray sedan to a
fire station in the Lake Morena area of Campo and knocked on the station
door in search of medical assistance for one of the men, E.R., who was
suffering from a gunshot wound to his left arm. A fire engine operator
opened the apparatus bay and started treating E.R.’s injury.
The woman tried telling the operator about the shooting, but E.R. was
reluctant to share information and repeatedly told the woman to stop talking.
Despite E.R.’s reluctance, he disclosed certain information about the shooting
to the operator. He said he was at a house with other people, someone shot
him point-blank in the arm, and he and his companions drove to the fire
station rather than calling for medical assistance. He stated the house was
down a common road and near a green gate in an area of Campo called
Hauser Canyon.
Two deputy sheriffs responded to the fire station. When they arrived,
medics were treating E.R., who appeared sweaty, nervous, and distressed.
E.R. repeatedly told one of the deputies that he did not know the name of the
shooter and did not want to say who shot him. However, E.R. said the
shooter was a white man who drove a pickup truck, and he shot E.R. after
falsely accusing E.R. of taking something from him.
While the deputies were at the station, one of them received a phone
call from V.L., a bystander to the shooting. V.L. provided the deputy with a
license plate number for a vehicle the shooter had driven that evening. A
records check revealed the vehicle was a white Toyota Tacoma registered to
3
Helton’s stepfather, Roy Helton, Jr. (Roy).2 Helton lived with Roy and other
family members in El Cajon.
While the deputies were still at the station, they received information
linking the shooting to an address in Hauser Canyon. The deputies went to
the address to investigate and announced their presence, but no one came out
of the residence. The deputies canvassed the yard and encountered a man
sleeping in a car on the property. The man told the deputies he heard an
argument earlier that night, but he provided no further useful information.
During the deputies’ canvas of the yard, they observed a small area of blood
spatter and recovered a .22-caliber shell casing near a dirt road next to the
residence.
A few weeks later, detectives went to Roy’s residence in El Cajon.
Helton and the Toyota Tacoma were there when the detectives arrived.
Helton seemed agitated and repeatedly shouted and interrupted the
detectives. At one point, a detective asked Helton if he ever went to Campo.
Helton said he occasionally went to the area to visit a family member who
lives on a Native American reservation in Campo, but he had not been out
there for several months.
Thereafter, investigators obtained video surveillance footage from a
Native American-owned casino in Campo. Footage from the day of the
shooting showed a white Toyota Tacoma arriving at the casino at 5:17 p.m.,
and a man wearing a bright red t-shirt with white lettering and dark-colored
pants exiting the truck, entering and exiting the casino, getting back into the
truck, and then driving in the direction of Lake Morena.
2 Because Roy Helton, Jr. shares the same surname as the appellant, we
refer to him as Roy for the sake of clarity. We intend no disrespect.
4
Detectives subsequently executed a search warrant at Roy’s residence.
They searched Helton’s room and found a red t-shirt with white lettering and
dark painter-style pants that matched the clothing worn by the man on the
casino surveillance footage. They did not find guns or ammunition in
Helton’s room. However, they searched Roy’s bedroom and found a gun safe
containing several firearms. They also found an additional unlocked 9mm
handgun and three containers of ammunition in Roy’s bedroom.
That same day, officers executed a traffic stop of the Toyota Tacoma.
Helton was driving and his teenaged niece was a passenger. After officers
advised Helton that he was under arrest, he became agitated and said he
needed to get his niece to school and call his family. He used profanity and
repeatedly threatened to kill the officers. A physical struggle ensued, and
officers ultimately restrained Helton on the ground.
V.L., the bystander who gave the license plate number to the deputy
sheriff, testified at trial. V.L. is a landscaper who was removing dead trees
from a property in Campo on the day of the shooting. According to V.L., a
gray sedan parked near his worksite that day, and four occupants (two men
and two women) emerged. Shortly after, a white Toyota Tacoma parked close
to the gray sedan, and a white man exited the truck. The man who exited the
truck began shouting and arguing with the men from the sedan. The man
from the truck kept saying the other men knew where his “shit” was, and
they were “the only two” who knew where it was. The men from the sedan
replied that they did not know where the other man’s “shit” was.
After a few minutes, the man from the truck said he would “be back,”
and warned the others they “better find [his] shit.” The man went back to his
truck, but then said, “You know what, fuck it,” pulled out a firearm, and
walked back to the others. The man from the truck pointed the firearm at
5
one of the other men, who grabbed for the firearm. The two men struggled
for a few seconds, and a gunshot went off. The man from the sedan said,
“You fucking shot me.” The man from the truck replied, “I didn’t fucking
shoot you,” and claimed, “It just grazed you.” The injured man got back into
the gray sedan with his companions and drove away. The shooter got back
into his truck and drove off soon afterwards.
V.L. recorded the truck’s license plate number as it drove away. He
also identified Helton as the shooter from a lineup of suspects.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief indicating that counsel has
not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738.
Counsel identified nine potential issues to assist us in our review:
(1) whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on unanimity as
to counts 2 and 3; (2) whether the court erred by denying Helton’s motions to
discharge and replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2
Cal.3d 118; (3) whether the court erred by denying Helton’s request to retain
counsel; (4) whether the court erred by admitting the non-testifying victim’s
statement at trial; (5) whether the court erred by not giving a unanimity
instruction on count 4; (6) whether the court erred by failing to dismiss all
but one of the enhancements under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B);
(7) whether the court abused its discretion when it imposed the low term for
count 1, but the midterm on the firearm enhancement; (8) if the People were
relying on the shooting to prove counts 2 and 3, whether counsel provided
ineffective assistance of counsel by not objecting to the relevance of the
firearms and ammunition found in Roy’s room; and (9) whether a remand is
6
necessary for the court to hold a hearing on Helton’s ability to pay the fines
and fees in light of People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders,
and considered the potential issues identified by Helton’s counsel. We
conclude there is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or
modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent
counsel has represented Helton in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
7