1

Filed 5/1/23 P. v. Richards CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ZANE BRONSON RICHARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A164860

 (Del Norte County

 Super. Ct. No. CRF21-9235)

Zane Bronson Richards appeals after a jury convicted him 

of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury 

and found true a great bodily injury enhancement. His appointed 

appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues but seeking 

our review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende). Our independent review of the record reveals no 

arguable issues, so we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Benjamin V.1 was sitting at a slot machine at the Lucky 7 

Casino when his brother, Allen V., returned from the bar and 

said someone at the bar was “talking crap” about Asians and 

wanted to fight him. Intending to deescalate the situation, 

Benjamin walked over to the bar with Allen, sat down next to 

1 The brothers share a common surname. For clarity, we 

will use the brothers’ first names.
2

Richards, and asked “what’s up? What’s the issue between you 

and my brother?” 

Richards did not respond, so Benjamin stood up to leave. 

Suddenly Richards punched him in the face, knocking him out. 

Richards landed two more punches to Benjamin’s head as he lay 

unconscious on the floor. Security footage of the assault was 

played to the jury. 

Richards’s blows dislodged both of Benjamin’s top front 

teeth and broke one of his lower teeth. He also suffered a black 

eye and eye pain; dizziness and light sensitivity; a fractured 

upper jawbone; and facial pain and swelling. 

Richards denied having said anything about Asians or 

challenging Allen in any way. He testified he was sitting at the 

bar when Benjamin, with Allen in tow, approached from behind, 

said “I heard you were talking crap about Asians. Let’s handle it 

as men,” and sat down next to him on his right. Allen was 

standing behind Richards on his left. Richards felt “cornered” by 

the two men. Afraid for his life, he struck Benjamin to defend 

himself. He did not realize at the time that his initial blow 

knocked Benjamin unconscious. 

Richards was charged with assault by means of force likely 

to produce great bodily injury (count one) and misdemeanor 

battery (count two), with enhancements as to count one for 

committing a hate crime and inflicting great bodily injury. The 

court subsequently dismissed the hate crime allegation on the 

district attorney’s motion. 

The jury returned a guilty verdict on count one and found 

the great bodily injury allegation true. The court imposed the 

aggravated four-year term on count one and a consecutive three 

years for the enhancement, for a total term of seven years, and 

dismissed count two. It reserved victim restitution, revoked 

probation and imposed concurrent one-year terms in two other 
3

cases with credit for time served, and reserved jurisdiction over 

restitution beyond a stipulated amount. The court imposed 

protective orders as to Benjamin and Allen, a $300 restitution 

fund fine (stayed until Richards started earning prison wages), a 

$40 court operations assessment, and a $30 conviction 

assessment. It imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation 

restitution fine. Richards was awarded 246 actual and conduct 

credits. 

The court subsequently recalled the sentence and 

resentenced Richards to the three-year midterm on count one 

pursuant to a recent amendment to Penal Code section 1170 

(Sen. Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 

1.3), for a total term of six years. 

DISCUSSION

Richards’s counsel has represented that he advised 

Richards of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of 

Richards’s rights to submit supplemental written argument on 

his own behalf and request that counsel be relieved. Richards 

has done neither of those things. This court has reviewed the 

entire record on appeal for potential error. No issue requires 

further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
4

______________________

BURNS, J. 

We concur:

____________________________

JACKSON, P.J. 

____________________________

LANGHORNE, J.*

A164860

* Judge of the Napa County Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.