Filed 6/4/24 P. v. Yancey CA5

(unmodified opinion attached)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TAEVION KAMARIMARQUIS YANCEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

F087389

(Super. Ct. No. F21906770)

ORDER MODIFYING 

OPINION 

(NO CHANGE IN 

JUDGMENT)

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 3, 2024, be modified as follows:

1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph at the top of page 4. 

2. Insert the following new paragraph between the first and second paragraphs 

at the top of page 4: 

In response to our invitation, Yancey filed a 

supplemental letter brief on May 6, 2024, which we have read 

and considered. However, he presents no issues that would 

warrant relief on appeal.

This modification does not change the judgment.

SNAUFFER, J.

LEVY, Acting P. J.

DE SANTOS, J.
Filed 6/3/24 P. v. Yancey CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TAEVION KAMARIMARQUIS YANCEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

F087389

(Super. Ct. No. F21906770)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Charles J. 

Lee, Judge.

Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and De Santos, J.
3.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY

This appeal is from a final judgment of conviction following a guilty plea. It is 

authorized by Penal Code section 1237.5.1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On August 24, 2021, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Yancey with 

attempted premeditated murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1), attempted kidnapping for 

carjacking (§ 664/209.5, subd. (a); count 2), carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 3), 

carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 4), and carrying a 

concealed firearm (§ 25400, subd. (a)(2); count 5).

An enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b))2 was alleged 

as to counts 1, 2, and 3. Criminal street gang enhancements were alleged as to all five 

counts (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1) [counts 1, 2, 4 & 5] & (b)(4)(B) [count 3]). An active 

gang participant enhancement was alleged as to counts 4 and 5 (§§ 25850, subd. (c)(3), 

25400, subd. (c)(3)). It was also alleged as an enhancement to count 4 that Yancey was 

not the registered owner of the firearm (§ 25850, subd. (c)(6)).

At the arraignment on December 16, 2021, Yancey pleaded not guilty to all counts 

and denied all enhancements. 

The preliminary hearing was rescheduled multiple times at the request of 

Yancey’s counsel as plea negotiations were ongoing. Finally, on September 21, 2023, a 

change of plea hearing was held. After being advised of and waiving his constitutional 

rights, Yancey pleaded no contest to attempted murder without premeditation (count 1)3

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 

2 The firearm enhancement to count 1 was originally alleged under 

section 12022.53, subdivision (d), but was changed to a subdivision (b) enhancement at 

the change of plea hearing on September 21, 2023. 

3 The complaint had originally alleged premeditation, but the trial court amended 

the complaint by interlineation to delete it on September 21, 2023. 
4.

and admitted an aggravating factor (great bodily injury). He admitted the firearm 

allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). On the People’s motion, the court dismissed the 

remaining counts and allegations, along with two unrelated cases, reserving a right to 

comment. There was a stipulated factual basis for the plea based on People v. West 

(1970) 3 Cal.3d 995. 

On October 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced Yancey to the stipulated sentence 

of 19 years, consisting of the aggravated term of 9 years for attempted murder and 10 

years, consecutive, for the personal firearm use enhancement. 

On December 19, 2023, Yancey timely filed a notice of appeal, with a request for 

a certificate of probable cause, which was granted the same day.

STATEMENT OF FACTS4

On August 20, 2021, a large crowd was leaving the Central High School stadium 

in Fresno after a football game. In the parking lot, 19-year-old Yancey, walked up to 

another young man, 19-year-old D.F., and pointed a gun at him. Yancey fired three 

shots, D.F. fell down, and Yancey fired a fourth shot.

Police officers present in their patrol car in the parking lot got out and ran toward 

Yancey, pointing their guns at him. Yancey ran out of the lot and jumped into the back 

seat of a parked vehicle. The driver was a 55-year-old-woman and the passenger was her 

13-year-old granddaughter. Yancey yelled at the woman to drive and the vehicle began 

moving slowly. When the police ordered it to stop, the woman and the girl got out and 

ran away. The vehicle kept moving until it came to a stop at the center median. The 

officers found Yancey in the backseat with his hands up and arrested him.

The gun, which was recovered from the floor of the vehicle, was a privately 

manufactured “ghost gun” with no serial number. It was loaded with six .40-caliber 

rounds and equipped with a laser sight.

4 Facts are taken from the October 24, 2023, probation officer’s report. 
5.

D.F. sustained one gunshot wound each to his right arm, left leg, left shoulder, 

right shoulder, and one rib. He denied knowing who shot him.

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Yancey’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes 

the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record 

independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also 

includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Yancey was advised he could file 

his own brief with this court. By letter on April 19, 2024, we invited Yancey to submit 

additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of 

ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to Yancey. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.