Background
Defendant and appellant Stephon Blakely was charged by amended information with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b), count 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 3), possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a), count 4), and misdemeanor possession of a large-capacity magazine (§ 32310, subd. (a), count 5). As to count 1, the information alleged that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing death under sections 12022.53, subdivision (d) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8); as to count 2, it alleged personal use of a firearm under sections 12022.5, subdivision (a) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). The information also alleged one prior strike conviction and three aggravating factors.
On August 12, 2025, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts and found the murder in count 1 to be in the second degree. The jury also found the firearm enhancement allegations true. In a bifurcated hearing, the court found the prior strike not true because defendant was under age 16 at the time of that offense, but found the aggravating factors true. The court then declined defendant's request to strike or reduce the firearm enhancement, concluding that it would not be in the interest of justice in light of his lengthy criminal history and the fact that, after he committed the murder in the instant case, defendant went to another state and committed another felony with a firearm. The court sentenced defendant to a total term of four years plus 40 years to life in state prison.
The Court’s Holding
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, the Court of Appeal appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and eight potential arguable issues: whether substantial evidence supported each of the five convictions; whether the court abused its discretion in ruling that a forensic pathologist could not testify about the effects of drugs found in the victim's system on his behavior; whether the court abused its discretion in determining that dismissal or reduction of the firearm enhancement would not be in the interest of justice; and whether the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms when the probation officer recommended concurrent terms.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. The judgment is affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed Blakely's convictions for second degree murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of an assault weapon, and misdemeanor possession of a large-capacity magazine, along with true findings on the firearm enhancements.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying eight potential issues, including substantial evidence challenges to each count and sentencing discretion questions.
- Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
- The trial court declined to strike or reduce the firearm enhancement, citing defendant's lengthy criminal history and a subsequent out-of-state felony committed with a firearm.
- The court sentenced defendant to a total term of four years plus 40 years to life in state prison.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion applies the well-established Wende/Anders/Kelly framework for appellate review when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. The court's independent review of the record found no arguable issues, and the judgment was affirmed, including the trial court's discretionary decision not to strike the firearm enhancement.
Because the opinion is not certified for publication, it has no precedential value under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), but it documents the appellate court's affirmance of a lengthy sentence in a second degree murder case involving firearm enhancements.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket