Filed 7/16/24 P. v. Brigham CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TYREECE BRIGHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B332960

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA508917)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Victoria B. Wilson, Judge. Affirmed.

Frank Bazadier for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Stephanie A. 

Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Tyreece Brigham, represented by counsel, appeals from a 

judgment after pleading no contest to having a concealed firearm 

in a vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 25400, 

subdivision (a)(1).

1 Brigham challenges his conviction by 

asserting that section 25400 is unconstitutional in light of the 

United States Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & 

Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 (Bruen) and the 

high court’s potential grant of a writ of certiorari in Nichols v. 

Newsom (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2022, No. 14-55873) 2022 

WL 4295404.

2

Brigham’s opening brief, however, fails to present any 

argument explaining how or why section 25400 violates the 

Second Amendment. Given the summary nature of his

argument, we conclude Brigham has forfeited his constitutional 

challenge. (See People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 512.) We 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At approximately midnight on May 16, 2022, police officers 

conducted a traffic stop when they observed Brigham make 

unsafe lane changes and an illegal U-turn. After Brigham 

consented to a search of the vehicle, the officers recovered a

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal 

Code.

2 The high court denied review on January 8, 2024 in 

Nichols v. Newsom (2024) 144 S.Ct. 569, six days after Brigham 

filed his opening brief.
3

nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun loaded with a high 

capacity magazine with 18 nine-millimeter rounds in a bag 

behind the driver’s seat.

Brigham was charged with having a concealed firearm in a 

vehicle in violation of section 25400, subdivision (a)(1), and 

carrying a loaded handgun in violation of section 25850, 

subdivision (a). Brigham moved to dismiss the charges, relying

on Bruen, supra, 597 U.S. 1 in the same summary fashion as in 

his opening brief. The trial court denied the motion. Brigham 

then pleaded no contest to having a concealed firearm in a vehicle

in violation of section 25400 and the trial court placed him on 

probation for two years. He timely appealed after obtaining a 

certificate of probable cause. (See § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.304(b)(1).)

DISCUSSION

Brigham contends section 25400 is unconstitutional in light 

of Bruen. Bruen involved the State of New York’s denial of the

plaintiffs’ license applications to carry handguns in public 

because the applications failed to demonstrate “‘proper cause.’” 

(Bruen, supra, 597 U.S. at p. 1.) To meet this standard, New 

York courts had ruled that applicants had to demonstrate a 

special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the 

general community. (See id. at p. 13.) Bruen held the proper 

cause requirement to obtain a public-carry permit violated the 

applicants’ Second Amendment rights. (See id. at p. 8.)

After quoting parts of Bruen, Brigham’s entire argument is

as follows: “And if the US Suprmes [sic] elect to grant cert. to 

hear Charles Nichols, Petitioner v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of 
4

California, California maybe without any excuse or claims that 

only its former ‘for cause requirement’ for one to be issued a 

concealed carry permit is unconstitutional leaving the remainder 

of its licensing scheme intact including the prohibition of nonfelons to go to non-sensitive locations bearing their firearms in 

public.” (Capitalization omitted.) Brigham presents no other

argument on appeal.

The People contend that Brigham’s argument was waived 

because he failed to support his claim with sufficient argument.

3

(See People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1029; People v. 

Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) The People further argue 

that Brigham based his claim of error on Nichols v. Newsom, in 

which he anticipated the high court would grant review, but as 

previously noted, the court denied review of that case. The 

People also argue that Brigham has no standing to challenge 

California’s firearm licensing laws because he never sought a 

license to own or carry a firearm. Additionally, the People cite 

post-Bruen cases holding that section 25400 remains valid and 

that Bruen had no effect on it. (See People v. Mosqueda (2023) 

97 Cal.App.5th 399, 403; People v. Miller (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 

935, 939 (Miller); In re T.F.-G. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 893, 908; 

In re D.L. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 144, 148.) Pre-Bruen cases have

also upheld the statutory provision against constitutional 

3 Although the People argue Brigham waived this argument, 

we conclude Brigham forfeited the argument. “Waiver is 

different from forfeiture. Whereas forfeiture is the failure to 

make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the ‘intentional 

relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’” (United 

States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 733; accord, Cowan v. 

Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367, 371.) 
5

challenges. (See, e.g., People v. Flores (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 

568, 574-577; People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 

311-314.)

After reviewing the opening brief, we agree Brigham has 

forfeited his argument that section 25400 is unconstitutional. 

Brigham’s opening brief does not contain any reasoned argument 

or support for his position. And even after the People raised this 

deficiency in the respondent’s brief, Brigham did not file a reply. 

“[O]ur review is limited to those issues that have been adequately 

raised and supported in the appellant’s brief” and “it is not the 

appellate court’s role to construct theories or arguments” for an 

appellant. (Lee v. Kim (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 721; Cal. Rules 

of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [appellate brief must “support each 

point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”], and 

rule 8.360(a) [briefs in criminal appeals must comply with rule

8.204].) 

As noted, several courts of appeal have considered and 

rejected similar challenges to the constitutionality of 

section 25400 and California’s firearm licensing scheme after 

Bruen. All of these opinions were published before Brigham filed 

his opening brief, but he failed to address or distinguish any of 

them. Brigham instead speculated that California’s firearm 

licensing laws may be constitutionally infirm if the United States 

Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Nichols. But he fails to 

explain the ruling in Nichols and how a grant of certiorari in that 

case would render California’s firearm licensing laws 

unconstitutional. In all events, as noted, the high court denied 

review in that case.

4

4 In light of our determination that Brigham forfeited his 

argument on the constitutionality of the statutory provision at 
6

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

MARTINEZ, P. J.

We concur:

FEUER, J.

STONE, J.

issue, we need not decide whether and how Bruen impacts 

section 25400, nor do we reach the People’s argument that 

Brigham lacks standing to bring such a challenge.