Filed 10/1/26 P. v. Lee 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090704
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. F25904259)
v.
RICHARD EDWARD LEE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Heather
Mardel Jones, Judge.
Richard Edward Lee, in pro. per.; Douglas C. Foster, 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 Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Sandhu, J.
Defendant Richard Edward Lee pled no contest to willfully inflicting corporal
injury to his spouse, resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)),
and he admitted having suffered one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i),
1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). He was sentenced to the lower term of two years, which was
doubled due to the prior strike conviction.
Lee’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, identifying no error and asking us to determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. Lee was afforded an opportunity to submit a letter brief, and he did so.
After considering the contention raised by Lee, and conducting our own
independent review of the record, we affirm.2
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On June 27, 2025, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint charging
Lee with willfully inflicting corporal injury to his spouse, resulting in a traumatic
condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1); making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 2); and
dissuading a victim from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 3). The
complaint also alleged Lee had two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the
“Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).
On September 17, 2025, Lee entered into a plea agreement. He pled no contest to
count 1 and admitted having suffered one prior strike conviction in exchange for
dismissal of the remaining counts, dismissal of one strike prior allegation, and a
maximum sentence of four years.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 While we are affirming the judgment, we note that the abstract of judgment
erroneously reflects that the crime occurred in 2020. We may order correction of a
clerical error in the abstract of judgment. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181,
185.) We will therefore order that the abstract be amended to reflect that the crime
occurred in 2025.
2.
On October 30, 2025, Lee filed a sentencing statement, which included an
“invitation” for the trial court to strike the remaining prior strike conviction allegation
pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
On November 5, 2025, the trial court sentenced Lee. After hearing argument, the
court denied Lee’s Romero request. Subsequently, it imposed a term of four years,
consisting of two years on count 1 (the lower term), doubled due to the prior strike
conviction. The court also imposed fines and fees, awarded Lee a total of 268 days of
custody credits, and issued a criminal protective order pursuant to section 136.2,
subdivision (i).
On November 6, 2025, Lee timely filed a notice of appeal. While he requested a
certificate of probable cause, that request was denied.
FACTUAL SUMMARY3
“The Confidential Victim (CV, age 55) and … Lee[] have been
married for seven years and are first cousins. They do not share any
children in common, and they were living together at the time of the
offense.
“On June 20, 2025, at approximately 11:16 p.m., officers were
dispatched to a confidential location regarding a domestic violence
disturbance. Upon arrival, Lee and the CV both reported CV had gotten
‘jumped’ by two Hispanic males. Officers observed the CV had dried
blood on her lip, a scratch on her right arm, and a bump on her left hand.
She was adamant that Lee did not cause her injuries. She was not able to
provide further information on the incident and requested to go to the
hospital. The CV was subsequently transported to [a hospital].
“On June 24, 2025, at approximately 1:23 p.m., an officer received a
call from the CV stating Lee was the person who had assaulted her. She
had been scared at the time to report what actually happened and wanted to
go to the hospital.
3 This factual summary is from the probation report’s summary of facts, which
was based on a crime report.
3.
“The CV stated she and Lee were involved in an argument when Lee
struck her multiple times in the head with a closed fist. As Lee was striking
her, she yelled out for juvenile M.C., age 14, to call law enforcement. Lee
exited the room, took M.C.’s cell phone, returned to the room and began
striking her again. Lee struck her so hard she fell over and she decided to
‘play dead’ in hopes Lee would stop striking her; however, Lee continued to
hit her by kicking her.
“[The] CV estimated she was struck 30 times during the incident.
She could not remember if she lost consciousness; however, she recalled
Lee stating ‘I’ll kill you bitch.’ She told Lee she needed to go to the
hospital; however, Lee stated ‘Bitch you’re gonna tell the police and their
[sic] going to try and put me in jail, hell no.’ The CV stated she told Lee if
he allowed her to go to the hospital, she would not tell officers what
happened. She wanted to go to the hospital because she thought she was
dying. Lee told her if she told on him he was going to have his family kill
her.”
DISCUSSION
As noted above, Lee’s appellate counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no basis
for relief and asking that we review the record to determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that
there are no arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–
443.)
As to Lee’s July 31, 2026, letter brief, while his argument is not entirely clear, we
understand him to contend that the trial court should have struck his prior strike
conviction because using the prior strike conviction to enhance his sentence violated
section 654. Even assuming Lee did not forfeit this claim, it fails.
As relevant here, section 654, subdivision (a), provides: “An act or omission that
is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under
either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more
than one provision.”
“Whether a defendant may be subjected to multiple punishment under section 654
requires a two-step inquiry, because the statutory reference to an ‘act or omission’ may
4.
include not only a discrete physical act but also a course of conduct encompassing several
acts pursued with a single objective. [Citations.] We first consider if the different crimes
were completed by a ‘single physical act.’ [Citation.] If so, the defendant may not be
punished more than once for that act. Only if we conclude that the case involves more
than a single act—i.e., a course of conduct—do we then consider whether that course of
conduct reflects a single ‘intent and objective’ or multiple intents and objectives.
[Citations.] At step one, courts examine the facts of the case to determine whether
multiple convictions are based upon a single physical act. [Citation.] When those facts
are undisputed … the application of section 654 raises a question of law we review de
novo.” (People v. Corpening (2016) 2 Cal.5th 307, 311–312.) However, [w]e review
any factual findings underlying the trial court’s ruling for substantial evidence.”
(People v. Washington (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 776, 795.)
Here, Lee was convicted of inflicting corporal injury to his spouse in 2025. As
Lee himself admits, the strike prior conviction was for a murder that occurred in 1988.
These crimes were not completed by a single physical act and the course of conduct
reflected multiple intents and objectives. Thus, section 654 does not apply and Lee’s
argument fails.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is ordered to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment reflecting that the crime was committed in 2025, and to forward a
copy of the amended abstract to the appropriate authorities.
5.