Filed 10/16/26 P. v. Starcher 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B352889
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 25ARCF01027)
CHRISTOPHER STARCHER,
Defendant and
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Joseph J. Burghardt, Judge. Affirmed.
Karen M. Sosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant Christopher Starcher guilty of
assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury
(Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4))1 and elder abuse under
circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death
(§ 368, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to four
years in prison. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a
brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2025, the Los Angeles County District Attorney
filed an information charging defendant with assault by means of
force likely to produce great bodily injury (count 1) and elder
adult abuse under circumstances likely to produce great bodily
harm or death (count 2). The information further alleged that
the offenses involved great violence (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
4.421(a)(1)), the victim was particularly vulnerable (id., rule
4.421(a)(3)), the violent conduct indicated a serious danger to
society (id., rule 4.421(b)(1)), and defendant had served a prior
term in prison (id., rule 4.421(b)(3)). The information further
alleged that defendant had a prior strike under the Three Strikes
law pursuant to sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (j) and
1170.12.
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
Jury trial commenced on September 4, 2025, and concluded
on September 10, 2025. The evidence at trial demonstrated that
on June 4, 2025, at approximately 7:30 p.m., William Tucker,
who was 71 years old, was walking his dog when he heard
defendant yelling profanities at two girls on the other side of the
street. Tucker told defendant to “‘leave those girls alone.’”
Defendant responded by striking Tucker’s face and saying, “‘Fuck
you, old man.’” Tucker fell backward, tripping on some tree roots.
Tucker suffered a cut near his eye and injuries to his left
shoulder, hip, and elbow. He did not seek medical treatment for
his injuries.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to both counts.
Defendant waived jury trial as to the prior strike allegation
and the aggravating factors. The trial court found true the prior
strike allegation and the allegation that the victim was
particularly vulnerable. The court found the other aggravating
factors not true.
On September 23, 2025, defendant filed a sentencing
memorandum and a motion to strike his prior strike conviction
pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th
497. On that same date, the trial court conducted the sentencing
hearing, denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strike
conviction, and sentenced defendant on count 1 to the low term of
two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the Three Strikes
law. For count 2, the court sentenced defendant to the low term
of two years, doubled to four years pursuant to the Three Strikes
law, and stayed the sentence pursuant to section 654. The court
awarded defendant 504 days of custody credit. The court also
ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim in an amount
to be determined at a later date. The court found that defendant
3
did not have the ability to pay “nonpunitive” fines and fees and
the abstract of judgment reflects that the court assessed no fines
or fees. Defendant appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
On August 3, 2026, counsel filed an opening brief in which
counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that
we follow the procedure set forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
page 441.
On August 3, 2026, we notified defendant that appointed
appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and he
had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for
appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider.
Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
III. DISCUSSION
We have independently reviewed the record and are
satisfied that defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has fully
complied with counsel’s responsibilities and no arguable issues
exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
4
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM (D.), J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
BAKER, J.
5