Filed 5/12/14 P. v. Barfield 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

BORIS R. BARFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B250217

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA398909)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. 

Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.

Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At approximately 2:15 a.m. on June 16, 2012, a student at the University of 

Southern California observed defendant Boris R. Barfield sodomizing Joseph M. in a

parking lot outside Joseph’s apartment near the campus. At the time, Joseph was 

unconscious from alcohol intoxication, having consumed drinks with fellow classmates

before walking home alone and encountering Barfield. The student who witnessed the 

crime saw “two men, one was on the floor, face down, and the other was on top, kind of, 

and it looked like he was humping the body on the floor.” The witness further observed 

that the man on the ground was “not moving at all” and “seemed pretty unresponsive.” 

Joseph had no memory of the incident.

The People charged Barfield in an amended information with sodomy of an 

unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (f); count 1),

1

sodomy of an intoxicated 

person (§ 286, subd. (i); count 2), and assault with intent to commit sodomy (§ 220, 

subd. (a)(1); counts 3 and 4). The information specially alleged as to all counts that 

Barfield had suffered seven prior serious or violent felony convictions within the 

meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had 

served two separate prison terms for felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Barfield pleaded not 

guilty to the charges and denied the special allegations.

The trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 4, assault with intent 

to commit sodomy, in furtherance of justice (§ 1385). The court also granted Barfield’s 

motion for a bifurcated jury trial on the prior conviction allegations. A jury convicted 

Barfield on count 2, sodomy of an intoxicated person, and count 3, assault with intent to 

commit sodomy. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on count 1, sodomy of an 

unconscious person. The court declared a mistrial as to that count and granted the 

People’s motion to dismiss it.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

After Barfield admitted one of the prior prison term enhancements, the trial court 

dismissed the remaining special allegations on the People’s motion. The court sentenced 

Barfield to an aggregate state prison term of seven years consisting of the middle term of 

six years for sodomy of an intoxicated person (count 2), plus one year for the prior prison 

term enhancement. The court stayed imposition of sentence on count 3 pursuant to 

section 654. The court awarded Barfield 766 days of presentence custody credit (383 

actual days and 383 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Barfield to pay a $40 

court security fee, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, a $340 sex offender fine, and a 

$240 restitution fine and to register as a convicted sex offender. The court imposed and 

suspended a parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Barfield on appeal. After an examination of 

the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On January 24, 2014 we 

advised Barfield that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to 

consider. We have not received a response.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that Barfield’s attorney on appeal 

has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that there are no arguable 

issues. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 

756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 441.)
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

SEGAL. J.*

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J.

ZELON, J.

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.