Filed 9/16/20 P. v. Streeter CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEMETRICE STREETER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B304652

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA464198)

THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Demetrice Streeter (defendant) 

appeals from an order denying his request to strike or dismiss the 

five-year sentence enhancement imposed pursuant to Penal Code 

section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

1

 His appointed counsel filed a 

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

raising no issues. On July 13, 2020, we notified defendant of his 

counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own 

brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, 

unless otherwise indicated. 
2

have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has 

submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the record, and 

finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

In 2018, defendant was convicted of criminal threats,

unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and assault with a 

semiautomatic firearm.2 Defendant was sentenced as a secondstrike offender under the Three Strikes law to three years for the 

assault count, doubled to six years, plus a three-year firearm 

enhancement and a five-year recidivist enhancement pursuant to 

section 667, subdivision (a)(1), for a total term of 14 years in 

prison. The sentences on the remaining counts were stayed or 

run concurrently. We corrected an error in the judgment and 

affirmed the judgment as corrected, but remanded for the trial 

court to consider whether to exercise its discretion under 

amendments to sections 1385 and 667, subdivision (a)(1)

(effective Jan. 1, 2019), to strike the five-year recidivist 

enhancement.

The evidence at trial showed that defendant approached 

the janitor at the residential hotel where defendant lived as the 

janitor was mopping a stairway in the building. When the janitor 

asked defendant to take a different stairway, defendant cursed 

and climbed the wet stairs. A short time later, defendant 

reappeared and said, “You don’t know who I am. I don’t play 

around with people. I’m 70 years old. I’m too old for this.” 

Defendant yelled and cursed. Other residents, including the 

2 We granted defendant’s request for judicial notice of the 

appellate record in defendant’s first appeal. (See People v.

Streeter (Sept. 25, 2019, B290158) [nonpub. opn.] (Streeter I).)

We summarize relevant background facts from that opinion.
3

janitor’s pregnant fiancée, came out of their rooms and watched 

as defendant approached the janitor, pointed a gun at his chest, 

and threatened to shoot him and his fiancée. Before returning to 

his room defendant said, “You better be lucky I didn’t shoot. I 

catch you outside, [I’ll] shoot your bitch ass.” The police later 

found a loaded firearm in defendant’s apartment.

Defendant attached evidence to his brief supporting his 

request that the trial court strike his recidivist enhancement. 

Medical records (exh. B) showed that defendant was 70 years old 

with type-2 diabetes and gastro esophageal reflux disease, and 

was presently undergoing radiation treatment for cancer. Prison 

records (exh. A) showed that defendant participated in mental 

health services and had been free of discipline during his oneand-a-half years of incarceration. The prosecution opposed 

striking the enhancement, pointing out that at the original 

sentencing the trial court considered such mitigating factors as 

defendant’s age and his representation that he had prostate 

cancer.

On January 27, 2020, the trial court denied the request to 

strike the recidivist enhancement, stating that it had read and 

considered the appellate opinion, the parties briefs and the 

evidence submitted by defendant, and heard defendant’s 

statement as well as the argument of counsel. The court

explained that at his original sentencing, it had balanced 

defendant’s lengthy criminal history, which included at least 

three state prison commitments, and the seriousness of the 

offense in this case, and had given him the low term, a 14-year

total sentence which was half his maximum exposure of 28 years.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

order.
4

We review a trial court’s decision under section 1385 for 

abuse of discretion; and we do not disturb the court’s discretion 

unless its sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. (See 

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375, 377 [refusal to 

strike or dismiss prior conviction].) Where, as here, we find no 

indication that the trial court’s sentencing decision was arbitrary 

or irrational, or that the court failed to act to achieve legitimate 

sentencing objectives, we do not disturb the court’s exercise of 

discretion. (See People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72.)

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that 

defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with her

responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude 

that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the 

Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate 

and effective appellate review of the trial court’s order denying 

his request to have the recidivist enhancement stricken. (Smith 

v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.