P. v. Dillihunt
Filed 1/13/09 P. v. Dillihunt CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL OZELL DILLIHUNT, Defendant and Appellant. | F054549 (Super. Ct. No. VCF181845) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge.
Donn Ginoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
It was alleged by information filed September 10, 2007, as follows: Appellant Darrell Dillihunt committed two counts of attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a), 664;[1]counts 1, 2) and individual counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling ( 246; count 3), assault with a firearm ( 245, subd. (a)(2)), and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony ( 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 5); in committing the count 1, 2 and 4 offenses, appellant personally used a firearm, within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a); in committing the count 1 and 2 offenses, appellant personally used a firearm, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and personally discharged a firearm, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c); and appellant committed the count 1, 2, 3 and 4 offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). Appellant pled not guilty to all charges and denied the special allegations.
On October 23, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, the information was amended to charge appellant in each of counts 1 and 2 with assault with a firearm upon a peace officer ( 245, subd. (d)(1)); appellant pled no contest to counts 1, 2 and 4, and admitted section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C) enhancement allegations as to counts 1 and 2; and the court dismissed counts 3 and 5.
On November 28, 2007, the court imposed a prison term of 28 years, consisting of the upper term of eight years on count 1 and consecutive 10-year terms on each of the two accompanying enhancements. The court imposed an identical concurrent term on count 2 and the enhancements accompanying that count, and a concurrent three-year midterm on count 4.
Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause ( 1237.5).
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTS
The report of the probation officer indicates that according to reports of the Tulare County Police Department, the following occurred on April 8, 2007.
A police officer, on routine patrol, observed a green Taurus automobile behaving suspiciously. The Taurus pulled into a parking stall, the officer pulled in behind the Taurus and appellant jumped out of the car. He appeared to be putting something in his waistband. The officer called out, Let me see your hands, but appellant ran away.
The officer made contact with the passenger in the Taurus, who was unwilling to identify the driver .... Shortly thereafter, a second officer arrived on the scene, and as he and the first officer were conferring, appellant began shooting at them. The first officer saw [appellant], and a muzzle flash across the street. Appellant fired again, and the first officer fired a shot in appellants direction. At that point, appellant ran off again. Investigation revealed [appellants] involvement ....
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Hill, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
