Filed 9/10/26 P. v. Smith CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B342020
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA151263)
v.
DERRICK ANDRE SMITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Teresa P. Magno, Judge. Affirmed as
modified.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Derrick Andre Smith appeals from a judgment of conviction
following a no contest plea. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Smith’s appellate counsel requested that
we review the record and determine whether any arguable issues
exist. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable
issues exist. We direct the trial court to correct the abstract of
judgment to accurately reflect the sentence imposed and
otherwise affirm the judgment.
On January 26 or 27, 2020, Smith encountered Linda M. at
the Vermont Metro Station, pushed her to the ground, attempted
to rape her, and took money from her.1 On June 15, 2020, Smith
killed Janet Urbina. On June 18, 2020, Smith tackled Alonza S.
from behind as she was walking down the street and raped her.
On or about June 21, 2020, Smith killed Alexis Duvall.
An October 2024 fourth amended information charged
Smith with seven counts: assault with intent to commit a felony
(Penal Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1); count 1); second degree robbery
(id., § 211; counts 2 & 5); assault with means of force likely to
cause great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3); forcible
rape (id., § 261, subd. (a)(2); count 4); and murder (id., § 187,
subd. (a); counts 6 & 7).2
The information also alleged that counts 6 and 7 were
committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation within
the meaning of section 189, subdivision (a); a multiple murder
special circumstance allegation under section 190.2,
1 We take the following facts, cited by Smith, from the
probation report and the operative information.
2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
2
subdivision (a)(3), for counts 6 and 7; that Smith committed the
crimes alleged in counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 while released on bail,
within the meaning of section 12022.1; and factors in aggravation
under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421 for counts 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5.
Smith pled no contest to all counts and admitted all of the
charged allegations, special circumstances, and enhancements.
The court found Smith guilty on all counts and found the related
allegations true.
The court sentenced Smith as follows: the midterm of four
years on count 1; the midterm of three years on count 2; the
midterm of three years on count 3, stayed pursuant to
section 654; the midterm of six years on count 4; and the midterm
of three years on count 5. The court ordered counts 2 and 5 to be
served concurrently with the determinate term of 10 years on
counts 1 and 4. As to counts 6 and 7, the court imposed a
sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The court
imposed and stayed two-year sentences on the section 12022.1
allegations as to counts 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Smith timely appealed. He did not request or obtain a
certificate of probable cause.
Court-appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief
that raised no issues and asked this court to independently
review the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We
directed appellate counsel to send Smith the record and a copy of
the opening brief. We also advised that within 30 days of the
date of the notice, Smith could submit a supplemental brief or
letter stating any ground for an appeal, contentions, or
arguments he wished this court to consider. Appellate counsel
submitted a declaration stating that counsel had informed Smith
3
of his right to file a supplemental brief and had sent him the
appellate record. Smith did not file a supplemental brief.
We have independently examined the record on appeal and
are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and Smith’s attorney
has complied with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125–126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
pp. 441–442.)
We direct one clerical correction to the abstract of
judgment. The trial court imposed and stayed section 12022.1
bail enhancements as to counts 4, 5, 6, and 7. The determinate
abstract of judgment erroneously omits the section 12022.1
enhancement as to count 5. “Where there is a discrepancy
between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute
order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement
controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.)
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the
sentence for the section 12022.1 enhancement on count 5, which
the trial court stayed. (People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89.)
4
DISPOSITION
We modify the judgment as follows. The abstract of
judgment must be corrected as to count 5 to reflect that a Penal
Code section 12022.1 enhancement was imposed and stayed. We
direct the trial court to amend the determinate abstract of
judgment to reflect the above correction and to forward a copy of
the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, P. J.
We concur:
HANASONO, J.
ASHWORTH, J.*
* Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
5
