Court Opinion

ID: 9396924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 22:03:37.407133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.388615
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/23/23 P. v. Avelar CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079908

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FWV21000156)

 FABIAN AVELAR,                                                          OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson

Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.

         Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No response from Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Fabian Avelar appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted murder (Pen.

Code, §§ 644/187, unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code) with allegations that he

inflicted great bodily injury (§12022.7) and used a firearm (§12022.53 (c), (d)) and his

convictions for discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (§ 246), and assault with a

firearm (§ 245 (a)(2)). Finding no arguable issues, we affirm.

                                              I

                                          FACTS

       On the evening of December 29, 2020, Michael Falcon parked his car near the

Party Time Liquor store in Ontario. Falcon testified he was sitting in his car with the door

open, rolling a marijuana blunt, when someone approached him said, “What’s up, bitch,”

and fired at least two shots, wounding his elbow and thigh.

       The shooter left the scene and Falcon contacted 911. At the hospital, where he

received treatment, Falcon initially told responding authorities he didn’t know who shot

him. However, he later identified Avelar as the shooter. Falcon explained he didn’t

identify Avelar as the assailant at first because he was afraid of being labeled a snitch in

his neighborhood.

       Surveillance footage showed Avelar parking a car near Party Time Liquor,

entering and exiting the store, and departing from the scene. In a postarrest interview,

Avelar acknowledged still photographs taken from the surveillance video depicted him at

the store. Though they could not positively identify Avelar, bystanders testified to seeing

                                              2
the man who drove away in Avelar’s car approach Falcon and then retreat with a

handgun after they had heard gunshots.

                                              II

                                        ANALYSIS

       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief

under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Ca1.3d 436 and Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting out a statement of the case, and identifying one potential

arguable issue—whether the trial court judge prejudicially erred by failing to omit

reference to certainty as a relevant factor for eyewitness identification in CALCRIM No.

315. We offered Avelar an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he chose not to

do.

       The trial judge did not err by failing to omit reference to certainty as a relevant

factor for eyewitness identification. Though witness confidence in an identification is not

correlated with accuracy of identification, any error was harmless where the eyewitness

knew Avelar before the shooting and the primary defense trial strategy was to imply he

was testifying falsely, not that he had made a mistake. (People v. Wright (2021) 12

Cal.5th 419, 453.)

       In addition, we’ve conducted an independent review of the record and find no

other arguable issues. Counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of

the record have provided Avelar adequate and effective appellate review of his conviction

                                              3
and sentence. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40

Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

                                          III

                                    DISPOSITION

      We affirm the sentence.

                                                             SLOUGH
                                                                                      J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                         P. J.

FIELDS
                            J.

                                           4