Full Opinion

Filed 10/23/26 P. v. Blakely CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E086801 v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2100112) STEPHON BLAKELY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Johnnetta E. Anderson, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 1 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Stephon Blakely appeals the judgment after a jury convicted him of four felonies and one misdemeanor and found true two firearm enhancements. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by amended information with murder (Pen. Code1, § 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), misdemeanor possession of a large-capacity magazine (§ 32310, subd. (a), count 5). As to count 1, the amended information alleged that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing death. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) As to count 2, the amended information alleged that he personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The amended information alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1) & 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and also alleged 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 to be true. 1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Defendant requested the court to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement and the prior strike conviction. In a bifurcated hearing, the court found the prior strike to be not true, since defendant was under the age of 16 at the time of the offense. The court found true the aggravating factors. 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. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant and S.B. met and went on a few dates. S.B. had known N.H. (the victim) since they were kids, since their families were friends. S.B. referred to the victim as her cousin. Defendant told S.B. that he needed help selling drugs, and S.B. called the victim, who said he needed extra money. On or around October 5, 2019, defendant and S.B. drove out to Hemet to meet with the victim. They picked him up and drove to a park. Defendant and the victim smoked marijuana and discussed selling some narcotics together. The victim agreed to help defendant. Defendant, S.B., and the victim left the park and drove to a Travelodge (the Travelodge). S.B. had to go to work at 3:00 p.m., so they booked a room so defendant would have somewhere to stay. Defendant and S.B. talked a few times during the day through FaceTime, while S.B. was at work. The last 3 time they talked was around midnight, when defendant told her “to tell [the victim] to get away from the door.” S.B. tried to find out what was going on. Defendant said, “ ‘I’m about to light your cousin up.’ ” Right after that, S.B. heard some loud popping sounds, and the phone went dead. Sometime after that, defendant called S.B. back on FaceTime. She could see that he was outside and “moving fast.” Defendant asked her to come and pick him up. S.B. asked what happened to the victim. Defendant said he could not talk and hung up. He then called back two or three times and had very short conversations with her. The only thing he talked about was her picking him up. A police officer responded to a call for shots fired at the Travelodge. When the officer arrived, he observed the victim lying on his back in front of room 202. The victim had multiple gunshot wounds and did not have a pulse. The paramedics arrived and pronounced him dead. The victim did not have any knives or guns on him. The police found four shell casings at the scene. Another officer responded to the scene and viewed surveillance video from the Travelodge. The footage showed that, at 12:39 a.m., the door to room 205 opened and the victim was standing at the threshold of the door and “the door get[s] pushed against him.” Then the video showed defendant punch the victim in the face or head area, and the victim’s legs buckle. The victim went back to the doorway, and defendant pushed him out of the room. The victim went back into the room, and there was a physical altercation inside. The video then showed the door to room 205 pushed close with the victim standing outside of it. Another person, S.W., appeared in the video, and it showed 4 him walk toward the room and talk to the victim. The victim’s back was against the door to room 205. The video showed defendant open the door and point a firearm toward S.W., then turn and point it toward the victim. The video showed a muzzle flash come out of the barrel of the gun. Then defendant proceeded to run southbound through the parking lot and out of the camera’s view. On October 12, 2019, a police officer was dispatched to a mobile home park near the Travelodge, where someone had found a Masterpiece Arms nine-millimeter firearm. The firearm had a threaded barrel, which allowed a silencer to be added to the end of it. The officer took the firearm to the police station. A criminalist analyzed the firearm and determined that the shell casings found at the Travelodge were fired from the Masterpiece Arms nine-millimeter firearm that was found at the mobile home park. The criminalist testified at trial that the firearm was a semiautomatic weapon, and with the threaded barrel, it qualified as an assault weapon in California. She also testified that the magazine held over 10 rounds, which California defined as a large-capacity magazine. DISCUSSION Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 several potential arguable issues: (1) whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction in count 1; (2) whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction in count 2; (3) whether there was substantial evidence to support 5 the conviction in count 3; (4) whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction in count 4; (5) whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction in count 5; (6) whether the court abused its discretion in ruling that a forensic pathologist could not testify about the effects of the drugs found in the victim’s2 system on his behavior; (7) 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 (8) whether the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive terms when the probation officer recommended that it impose concurrent terms. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. 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. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS FIELDS J. We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J. 2 The opening brief mistakenly refers to someone named “Hughes” on this issue; however, defense counsel’s request was for the court to allow the pathologist to testify about the drugs in the victim’s system. 6 CODRINGTON J. 7