Court Opinion

ID: 9951400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 22:02:43.239408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:00.767370
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Jah CA1/1
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION ONE

 THE PEOPLE,
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  A166034

 v.                                                                     (Marin County
 DAVID MARTIN SHE JAH,                                                  Super. Ct. No. SC206320A)
             Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant David Martin She Jah appeals from the trial court’s order
suspending sentence and placing him on two years of supervised probation
following his guilty plea to assault by means of force likely to produce great
bodily injury (Pen Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Jah’s appointed appellate
counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the
record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Jah
subsequently filed supplemental briefing on his own behalf. Having reviewed
the record and briefing, we affirm.

        All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
         1

indicated.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      On December 10, 2019, the Marin County District Attorney filed an
information alleging that, on or about September 26, 2018, Jah committed
felony assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1); felony discharge of
a firearm with gross negligence (§ 246.3; count 2); and felony carrying a
concealed firearm when not the registered owner (§ 25400, subds. (a)(2) &
(c)(6); count 3). Counts 1 and 2 were enhanced with allegations that Jah
inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7,
subdivision (a).
      The charges were based on the following incident.2 Around 10:30 p.m.
on September 25, 2018, several Marin County deputy sheriffs responded to a
report of shots fired in a parking lot near the 300 Drake Ave. area of Marin
City. During their investigation, a witness reported that a Black male
wearing a red hat, white shirt, and dark pants had fired a firearm with an
extended magazine in the parking lot. The witness heard two sets of firing—
a few rounds first, then about six more. The shooter then went to a black
1996 Lincoln, retrieved a bag, and left the area. At an infield showup, the
witness was “100 percent sure” Jah was the shooter. The witness also
observed another Black male in a blue hooded sweater fire rounds.
      Deputies also learned that Henry W. had been taken to a local hospital
with multiple gunshot wounds. When interviewed, Henry W. reported that
he had been hanging out in the parking lot when he heard gunshots, saw
other people start running, and ran to his sister’s nearby apartment, where
he noticed he was bleeding.

      2Our summary of the facts underlying the charges in this matter is
based on the transcript of the September 2019 preliminary hearing.

                                        2
      Deputies canvassed the parking lot for evidence, finding casings, a live
round, and two vehicles with gunshot holes. They began securing the scene.
While they were doing so, an individual identified as Jah approached Deputy
Edmund Rudolph, stated the black Lincoln was his car, and asked if he could
leave in it. Rudolph responded that it was a crime scene and obtained
permission from Jah to pat him down. After Rudolph located two magazines
in the pocket of Jah’s peacoat, Jah was detained in handcuffs for further
search. During this period, Jah twice stated, “ ‘It was self defense.’ ” The
subsequent search of Jah, including a black bag he was wearing under his
coat, disclosed a Fire Star semiautomatic pistol, a red hat, bullets, and a
loaded magazine clip.
      Deputy Sean Makyel subsequently interviewed Jah after he waived his
Miranda3 rights. According to Jah, he and some friends were hanging out in
the parking lot on the night of the incident, drinking and smoking marijuana.
He told several people in the area that he had two guns and warned them to
stay away from his car. He also showed photos of the firearms. The guns
were two .45-caliber semiautomatics, a Firestar and a Glock 30. The Firestar
gun was registered to his father. Jah was seated in the rear seat of his car
when an individual opened “the driver’s side passenger door,” pointed a gun
at him, and demanded one of his guns. A second individual opened the front
passenger door and grabbed the Glock 30 from under the passenger seat. He
then opened the back passenger door and demanded the Firestar. Jah stated
he refused, lunged at the second individual, exited, and fired a round into the
ground in an attempt to scare the second individual off. Jah waved his gun
around, telling everybody to get down. He then started chasing the first
individual, firing nine rounds randomly in his direction. Jah reported there

      3   Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

                                       3
were a lot of people in the parking lot at this time. Jah stated that he
believed the first individual had a loaded gun, and he was “ ‘scared as fuck.’ ”
But he also claimed that he only aimed at the first individual’s lower torso to
slow him down so he could question him regarding the whereabouts of the
second individual who had stolen his Glock 30. After a brief conversation
with the first individual, Jah went back to his car, reloaded his gun, grabbed
a backpack, and then went looking for the second individual.
      At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Jah was held to answer
on all counts. On December 10, 2019, Jah waived formal arraignment on the
information, pleaded not guilty, and denied all enhancements. On
February 4, 2020, new counsel substituted in for the defense. In March 2020,
defense counsel filed a motion for disclosure of the identity of confidential
witnesses, which the court granted over opposition. Defense counsel also
filed a motion under section 995, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the probable cause finding made at the preliminary hearing with
respect to count 1, and a motion to suppress evidence. The section 995
motion was heard and denied in December 2020.
      At a pretrial conference on February 4, 2021, defense counsel expressed
a doubt as to Jah’s competency to stand trial, and the proceedings were
suspended. In April 2021, after receipt of a doctor’s report, the court declared
Jah not competent nor able to cooperate with counsel, ultimately ordering an
outpatient treatment evaluation for restoration of competency. On July 15,
2021, the court committed Jah to Golden Gate CONREP for outpatient
treatment/competency training. By August 27, 2021, the court had received a
certificate of mental competence with respect to Jah from Golden Gate, found
Jah’s competency had been restored, and reinstated criminal proceedings.

                                        4
      Thereafter, the parties presented a negotiated resolution to the court.
On November 19, 2021, the court discussed with Jah his constitutional rights
and the possible consequences of his plea, and Jah submitted a written
waiver of rights. Jah then pleaded guilty to an amended count 1 (assault
with force likely to cause serious bodily injury pursuant to § 245,
subd. (a)(4)), in return for a stipulated sentence of two years’ formal
probation, a maximum of 120 days in county jail, the possibility of reduction
to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b) after 18 months of
probation, and dismissal of the other counts and the enhancements. The
court found Jah’s plea with respect to count 1 to be knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary. It dismissed the balance of the allegations.
      At sentencing on January 13, 2022, the court suspended sentence and
placed Jah on supervised probation for two years under numerous terms and
conditions, including participation in therapy and 60 hours of community
service. The court also imposed a 100-day jail sanction. The court declined to
award conduct credits for the time Jah spent in outpatient treatment, but
otherwise awarded 45 days for time served.4 The court imposed a restitution
fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment
(§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). It
additionally imposed but stayed a $300 parole revocation fine. (§ 1202.45,
subd. (a).) Jah filed a timely notice of appeal with respect to postplea issues.
                                DISCUSSION
      As mentioned above, Jah appealed from the trial court’s January 2022
sentencing order made after he pleaded guilty to assault by means of force

      4 Appellate counsel subsequently asked the trial court to correct Jah’s

presentence credits to award the conduct credits he was entitled to receive for
his outpatient treatment, and the trial court did so.

                                        5
likely to produce great bodily injury. We appointed counsel to represent Jah
on appeal. Counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues and requesting that
we independently review the record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see
also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) Jah was advised by his
attorney of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court, and
he did so, raising a number of issues.
      We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Jah’s
attorney has complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue
exists. We also conclude that Jah, himself, has raised no arguable issues
meriting further review. Jah contends that counsel was ineffective for failing
to raise the issue of his competency at the preliminary hearing stage,
rendering his subsequent plea invalid. He also argues counsel was
incompetent for failing to call witnesses who could have corroborated his self-
defense claim and for failing to raise the self-defense issue in the section 995
motion. He states that the multiple shell casings found at the crime scene
did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter, and that
the victim, Henry W.’s, long criminal record somehow shows that the
responding officers were not truthful and that he, Jah, was acting in self-
defense. Finally, noting his brother-in-law had been shot and killed during a
robbery and arguing that he was set up to be robbed and had been provided
involuntary intoxicants by someone he trusted, Jah claims that counsel was
ineffective for failing to investigate his mental state at the time of the crime
and present a mental health expert to opine that his response was due to
posttraumatic stress disorder.
      The fundamental flaw with respect to all of these arguments is that
Jah waived his right to appeal anything other than possible sentencing error
when he pleaded guilty in return for a suspended sentence. Thus, he cannot

                                         6
now raise any of the issues he identifies. Many of his assertions might have
become relevant had he decided to go to trial and argue self-defense, but he
chose a different path. As to his overall competency to enter his guilty plea,
after an extended colloquy in which Jah repeatedly sought clarification when
he failed to understand something, the trial court found the plea was made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. At that time, Jah recently had
been certified competent to proceed, and defense counsel did not re-raise any
doubts as to his client’s competency. While Jah claims that the record makes
clear that his comprehension was impaired as early as his first appearance,
we have reviewed the entire record and find no such evidence.
                               DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                       7
                                           CASTRO, J.*

WE CONCUR:

BANKE, ACTING P. J.

LANGHORNE WILSON, J.

A166034
People v. Jah

      * Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                       8