Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Felila CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C104705
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 24FE016546)
v.
TAUFA LAIATU FELILA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Taufa Laiatu Felila asks this court to review the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to Felila, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
While patrolling in South Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff’s detectives
saw three individuals standing outside a business frequently used by narcotics dealers.
The individuals stood approximately 10 feet apart with their backs against the wall,
staring into traffic and not speaking to one another—behavior the detectives associated
with illegal narcotics sales at that location. The detectives stopped to speak to the
individuals, one of whom was Felila.
Felila was wearing a black satchel, which the detectives knew was commonly used
in Sacramento to carry firearms. A detective asked Felila what he was doing, whether he
1
worked at the business, and whether he had a gun. The detective asked whether Felila
was armed based on the satchel, the location being a “notorious high-crime area for gang
members,” and the fact that narcotics dealers often carried firearms for protection. Felila
answered all of the detective’s questions except whether he had a gun. The detective
asked if he could check Felila’s satchel, and Felila did not object. Without opening the
satchel, the detective touched its exterior and felt the weight and outline of a firearm.
The detective handcuffed Felila, informed the other detectives of the firearm, and
removed a loaded nine-millimeter pistol from the satchel.
Felila had a prior felony conviction.
An information charged Felila with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen.
Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1); count one) and carrying a loaded, unregistered handgun
(§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(6); count two). The information also alleged Felila had a prior
strike conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
On May 20, 2025, Felila requested mental health diversion under section 1001.36.
The trial court subsequently granted Felila’s request to withdraw his motion for
diversion.
On June 13, 2025, Felila moved to suppress evidence but withdrew the motion that
same day.
On July 14, 2025, the prosecution dismissed count two. The following day, the
prosecution filed an amended information retaining count one and the prior strike
allegation and adding as a factor in aggravation that Felila had served a prior prison term
under section 1170, subdivision (h). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3).)
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
The same day, the trial court heard and ruled on the parties’ motions in limine.
Thereafter, Felila requested permission to make a Marsden2 motion after trial but
immediately withdrew the request.
A jury found Felila guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (§ 29800,
subd. (a)(1).)
Felila requested a new jury for the bifurcated proceedings on the prior strike
allegation and prior prison term aggravating factor. The trial court denied the request,
noting Felila had the right to a jury trial, the current jury was fair and impartial, and the
court was unaware of any legal authority entitling Felila to a different jury. Defense
counsel stated he would research the issue and inform the parties by e-mail of what he
found. The issue was not revisited.
In bifurcated proceedings, the prosecutor introduced certified records of Felila’s
prior conviction for attempted residential burglary and his prior prison term. The jury
found the allegations true.
At sentencing, the trial court considered the probation report and letters from
Felila’s friends and family. The prosecution submitted on the probation report, which
recommended the upper term of three years, doubled to six years due to the prior strike
conviction. Felila requested the middle term of two years, doubled to four years.
The trial court noted Felila’s record was “pretty bad” and that he “regularly has
firearms.” Based on the aggravating factor and absence of mitigating circumstances, the
court sentenced Felila to the upper term of three years, doubled to six years due to the
prior strike conviction. It imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), imposed and stayed
an identical parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov.
Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8). The court waived all
2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
3
other fines and fees based on Felila’s prison sentence and lack of income. It awarded 161
days of actual custody credit and 160 days of conduct credit, for a total of 321 days of
presentence custody credit. Felila timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Felila was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening
brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from
Felila. We have undertaken an examination of the record and conclude there is no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
4
