Court Opinion

ID: 9893874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 19:05:47.209329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:52.192032
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/30/23 P. v. Duckworth CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C098033

           v.                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-
                                                                                     FECOD-2022-0000377)
 ROBERT LEE DUCKWORTH, JR.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Lee Duckworth, Jr., asked this court
to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                                             I
         Defendant was driving a Hyundai Sonata in Stockton on January 11, 2022.
Dashawn Madave was his passenger. Stockton Police Officers Darren Newland and
William Hall stopped the vehicle because the Hyundai had front dark tinted windows.
Both defendant and Madave were on searchable parole and Officer Hall found marijuana

                                                             1
on the back seat and a loaded 40-caliber handgun in a small backpack in the trunk.1
Authorities also located rifle magazines and loose rifle ammunition in a plastic bag in that
trunk. Defendant told officers the Hyundai belonged to his wife but the contents were
his. Madave, testifying under a grant of immunity, denied knowing anything about there
being a gun in the car and stated he only had his cellphone with him. Defendant made
incriminating statements to Officer Newland and during recorded jail calls. The parties
stipulated to defendant’s prior felony conviction.
       A jury found defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of ammunition
(Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)),2 but was unable to reach verdicts on the remaining
counts concerning possession of the handgun (§§ 25850, subd. (c)(3), 29800,
subd. (a)(1)), which were dismissed on the People’s motion in the interests of justice.
In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court determined defendant had a prior strike
conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
       Thereafter, the trial court denied defendant’s motions for a new trial, to reduce
defendant’s conviction to a misdemeanor, and to strike the prior strike. The trial court
sentenced him to four years in prison (the middle term of two years, doubled because
of the prior strike), awarded 32 days of presentence credit (16 actual days and 16 conduct
days), and imposed statutory minimum fines and fees.
                                                II
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel

1 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress this evidence, concluding there
was probable cause for the stop, defendant and Madave were both on searchable parole,
and officers knew of the parole status prior to the search.
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                2
of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening
brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /S/
                                                  MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

    /S/
DUARTE, J.

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                              3