Court Opinion

ID: 9945498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:03:28.024384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.917174
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/27/24 P. v. Cannon 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                   B329362

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. VA157249)
         v.

DOMINGO CANNON,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      On November 15, 2021, defendant and appellant Domingo
Cannon stabbed Tyler Robinson (Robinson) in the head, left
shoulder, right hand, throat, and chest. As a result, Robinson
underwent surgeries and was bedridden for three to four months.
      Defendant was arrested and searched a week after the
stabbing. A bag he was carrying contained a six-inch kitchen
knife. A shotgun with a jagged barrel tip was found during a
search of defendant’s apartment.
      In an amended information filed by the Los Angeles County
District Attorney’s Office, defendant was charged with willful,
deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,
§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a))1 and possession of a short-
barreled rifle or shotgun (§ 33215). As to the attempted murder,
it was alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily
injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that he had personally used a
deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
       Defendant was tried and, on October 27, 2022, a jury found
him guilty as charged and the enhancement allegations to be
true.
       The trial court sentenced defendant to a six-year
determinate prison term, comprised of the midterm of two years
for possessing a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, three years for
the great bodily injury enhancement as to the attempted murder,
and one year for the weapon enhancement as to the attempted
murder. The court sentenced defendant to a consecutive
indeterminate term of life in prison for the attempted murder,
with a minimum parole eligibility date of seven years. The court
ordered defendant to pay a $187.37 restitution fine (§ 1202.4,
subd. (b)) and imposed but stayed a $300 parole revocation fine
(§ 1202.45). The court struck court operations (§ 1465.8) and
criminal conviction (Gov. Code, § 70373) assessments.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
       Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in
connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel
filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which no arguable issues were raised.
On November 20, 2023, we informed defendant by letter that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for

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

                                2
appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. On
December 22, 2023, the letter was returned to this court with a
label on the envelope stating, “RETURN TO SENDER [¶]
INMATE REFUSED[.]” (Bolding omitted.) To date, we have
received no further response from defendant.
       We have independently examined the entire record on
appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
       Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
Wende procedure and our independent review of the record,
received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–
110.)
                         DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J.        ASHMANN-GERST, J.          HOFFSTADT, J.

                               3