Filed 5/12/14 P. v. Barf iel d CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B ARFIELD
, Defendant and Appellant. B25 0 2 17
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA39 8909 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. Egerton , Judge. Affirmed. Joshua L. Siegel , under appointment by the Court of Appea l, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearanc e 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 obse rved 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 e ncountering 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 h umping 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 charg ed Ba r field in an amended information with sodomy of an unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 286 , subd. ( f ) ; count 1 )
, 1 sodomy of an intoxicated

p erson (§ 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 conviction s within the

m eaning of the t hree s trikes 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 g ranted 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 o n 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. T he court declared a mistrial as to that count and granted the People’s mot ion to dismiss it

.

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

A fter 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 consis ting 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 pr esentence 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 $2 4 0 restitution fine and to register as a convict ed sex offender

. The court imposed and suspended a parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4 5

.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Barfield on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief rais ing 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
ha s fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and that there are no arguable
issue s

. (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 J ustice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.