Filed 9/6/24 P. v. Hansen CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICAH HANSEN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G063161

 (Super. Ct. No. 21CF1085)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Scott A. Steiner, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
2

INTRODUCTION

A jury found defendant Micah Hansen guilty of one count of 

attempted murder. The jury found to be true the allegations that defendant

committed the attempted murder willfully, deliberately, and with 

premeditation and that in the course of committing attempted murder he 

inflicted great bodily injury on another person who was not an accomplice. 

The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of seven years to life on the 

attempted murder conviction with a consecutive three-year term for infliction 

of great bodily injury. 

Defendant filed a notice of appeal. His appointed counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth 

the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed 

counsel identified three potential issues to assist in our independent review. 

Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own 

behalf, but he has not done so.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and examined the record in 

accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders. We find no

arguable issues on appeal and therefore affirm.

FACTS

On July 29, 2020, Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy Herrera was 

working as a correctional officer assigned to module P at the Theo Lacy 

facility. When Herrera conducted an hourly routine safety check at 8:16 p.m., 

he found an inmate (the victim) lying in a pool of blood. As Herrera got closer 

to the victim, he noticed a pool of blood around the victim’s head and blood 
3

splattered on the nearby walls and cell doors. The victim had a slash across

his neck, on top of his head, on his right bicep, and across his eyebrow.

At first, Herrera thought the victim was dead, but then the 

victim was able to respond to questions by moving his head. Herrera called 

for paramedics, and the victim was transported to the emergency room at the 

University of California Irvine Medical Center, where he was treated.

Once the victim was transported away and the area was deemed 

safe, Herrera commenced an investigation by watching a surveillance 

videorecording of the area in which the victim was found. The videorecording 

was received into evidence as exhibit No. 9 and played for the jury while 

Herrera narrated. The videorecording showed that at 7:37 p.m., defendant

was standing in front of cell 3, the victim was standing in front of cell 5, 

inmate Fakinos was standing in front of cell 7, and inmate Jimenez was in 

front of cell 11. Jimenez and Fakinos appeared to be talking to each other 

and standing directly to the left of the victim. Within seconds, Jimenez 

attacked the victim by making a “slashing motion.”1

After the “slashing motion,” Jimenez left the attack briefly and 

went to the door to cell 7, in which a toilet was located. As Jimenez 

approached cell 7, Fakinos and defendant attacked the victim. There was a 

break in the attack for several seconds, then defendant resumed the attack. 

Defendant punched the victim approximately 60 times and kicked him 30 

times during the attack. Just before 7:42 p.m., the attack ended. 

1

 Herrera testified that inmates commonly remove blades from 

disposable razors and use them to slash the throats of other inmates. The 

inmates dispose of the blades usually by flushing them down a toilet. 
4

Immediately after the attack, Fakinos removed his shirt and 

pants. Defendant took a shower in the upper-level showers, and Fakinos took 

a shower in the lower-level showers. At 8:08 p.m., defendant, Jimenez, and 

Fakinos were near the television set in the dayroom. Four minutes later, the 

inmates were told over the intercom that dayroom time was over and to 

return to their cells. Defendant shook hands with Fakinos and Jimenez and

returned to his cell. 

The victim had a 15-centimeter long laceration to his neck. The 

laceration exposed the muscles and came within two to three millimeters of 

the jugular vein and within a centimeter of the carotid artery. The attending 

surgeon described the victim’s injuries, which required surgery, as 

“potentially life threatening.” The laceration to the neck could have been 

fatal if either the jugular vein or the carotid artery had been severed. The 

victim testified he could not recall anything about the assault or whether he 

had provoked the attackers. 

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and have 

examined the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and 

Anders. Counsel has suggested three issues to assist us in our review: 

(1) “[w]hether sufficient evidence was presented that [defendant] committed 

attempted murder”; (2) “[w]hether sufficient evidence was presented that 

defendant committed deliberate and premeditated attempted murder”; and 

(3) “[w]hether the court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the great 

bodily injury enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.” None of 

these issues have merit. 
5

However, we find that the amounts of the court operations 

assessment imposed by Penal Code section 1465.8 and the conviction 

assessment imposed by Government Code section 70373 were miscalculated. 

Pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, “an assessment of forty dollars ($40) 

shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense,” and pursuant to 

Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), “an assessment [of $30] 

shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . .” The 

assessment is imposed on each count of which the defendant stands 

convicted. (People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1415, fn. 3.)

Defendant was convicted of one count of attempted murder. The 

court operations assessment should be $40 (1 x $40) and the conviction 

assessment should be $30 (1 x $30). The abstract of judgment imposes a 

court operations assessment of $120 and a conviction assessment of $90. 

Although the trial court stayed all fines, fees, and assessments pursuant to 

People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1172-1173, we believe the 

judgment should reflect the correct amounts. 2 

DISPOSITION

The abstract of judgment is modified to impose a $40 court 

operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $30 conviction assessment 

2

 On the day defendant was sentenced in the present case, he 

entered a guilty plea to a companion prosecution, Orange County Superior 

Court case No. 23CF1580, in which he was charged with two counts arising 

out of an incident on April 6, 2022. Defendant was sentenced to a two-year 

term on count 1 to run concurrently with the sentence in the present case. 

The abstract of judgment in the companion prosecution reflects a conviction 

on a single count, and no fines, fees, or assessments—likely because the trial 

court waived them. 
6

(Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court is directed to prepare an 

amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the 

judgment is affirmed.

SANCHEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

GOETHALS, ACTING P. J.

DELANEY, J.