People v. Begaye CA5

Filed 11/4/26 P. v. Begaye CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F089883 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21909108) v. BRETTON AUSTIN BEGAYE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. William Terrence, Judge. Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State of Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Sandhu, J.  INTRODUCTION Defendant Bretton Austin Begaye entered a plea of no contest to second degree murder (Pen. Code, 1 § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted he suffered a prior conviction that constituted a “strike” within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). He was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life, doubled due to the prior strike. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has been unable to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and asking us to independently review the record for error. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the Wende brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having conducted an independent review of the record, we affirm. BACKGROUND I. Complaint On November 30, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with the murder of Owen Hancock (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), and the attempted murder of Patricia B. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2). As to both offenses, the complaint alleged an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) II. Competency Proceedings On February 1, 2022, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence. (§ 1368.) The court accepted the representations of counsel, suspended criminal proceedings, and appointed a doctor to examine defendant. The doctor concluded defendant had a mental health diagnosis, but that diagnosis was in remission 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. due to defendant taking medication. As such, the doctor opined defendant was able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings and capable of cooperating in a rational manner with counsel in presenting a defense, and therefore competent to stand trial. Based on this assessment, the court found defendant competent and reinstated criminal proceedings. III. First Amended Complaint On June 2, 2022, defendant was arraigned on a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint included the same charges and allegations as the original complaint, but added a great bodily injury enhancement to count 2 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The first amended complaint also alleged defendant had suffered a prior conviction that constituted a “strike” within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)– (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) Defendant entered not guilty pleas as to both counts and denied all enhancements and priors. IV. Sanity Evaluation On November 1, 2022, the court appointed the same doctor to examine defendant to determine whether he was sane at the time of the offense; whether he would be a danger to the health and safety of others due to a mental defect, disease, or disorder; and whether he had improved to such an extent that he would no longer pose such a danger. (§§ 1026, 1026.2.) The doctor prepared a report detailing his findings, which was filed on February 2, 2023. Thereafter, the People sought to continue the preliminary hearing, then set for March 28, 2023, in light of defense counsel’s representation that defendant wished to enter pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The People stated they had no objection to vacating the preliminary hearing and appointment of an additional doctor to evaluate defendant pursuant to section 1026. 3.  On March 28, 2023, defendant entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The court continued the preliminary hearing and appointed two additional doctors to evaluate defendant pursuant to section 1026. V. Preliminary Hearing The preliminary hearing was conducted on October 31, 2023. A. Evidence We briefly summarize the evidence presented. On November 26, 2021, defendant was living at a residence in Auberry with his mother (Patricia) and Hancock. Hancock was not defendant’s father but had been in a relationship with Patricia for 12 years. Defendant had lived with them for approximately three years, since being paroled. Defendant previously stabbed his biological father and thereafter was housed at Atascadero State Hospital for eight or nine years, where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and provided medication. While living with Patricia and Hancock, defendant did not want to take his medication. There were issues with him taking his medication once or twice a week. While on his medication, defendant spent time with his family and could hold a conversation. While off his medication, defendant would pace, whisper to himself, and act paranoid and reclusive. On the day of the offenses, Hancock and defendant helped someone move and were having a good day. They returned around midafternoon and Hancock proceeded to watch television and drink beer. Hancock and Patricia both drank several beers. Patricia did not see defendant drinking. At some point, Hancock went to bed. Defendant and Patricia got into a verbal argument. Defendant called Patricia an idiot; Patricia told defendant not to speak to her that way and defendant again called her an idiot. Patricia went into her room where Hancock was already in bed. Patricia sat on the edge of the bed and continued to argue with defendant through the closed door to her room. Hancock told defendant not to talk to his mother like that. Patricia was getting nervous and 4. suggested to Hancock that she call 911. Hancock agreed. Defendant said, “I’ll kill you guys,” and busted into the room. Defendant jumped on Hancock and Patricia saw defendant hit him three times. Patricia unsuccessfully tried to intervene to help Hancock by pushing defendant off him. Patricia ran out of the room and down the road to her sister’s house to get help. At that point she realized she had been cut on the inside of her left forearm. She did not see a knife and did not previously know that defendant had a knife. Patricia’s sister Val C. attempted to stop the bleeding to Patricia’s arm with pressure, without success. Val saw defendant approaching them with what appeared to be a large kitchen knife. She then loaded Patricia into a vehicle and drove to a nearby casino where they met with security and law enforcement in the parking lot. Law enforcement applied a tourniquet to Patricia’s arm and summoned medical attention. Val became impatient with law enforcement and returned to Patricia’s residence on her own to check on Hancock. There, she encountered deputies in the front yard contacting defendant. She ran into the residence and found Hancock on his side in the bedroom and blood everywhere. Defendant was placed in custody in the front yard of the residence. He had blood on his hands and stated he had been shot. However, he had no signs of gunshot wounds or other injuries. After the incident, Patricia told an officer that Hancock was trying to protect her because defendant was trying to stab her. A Leatherman-style multi-tool was found in the grass area in front of the house, with what appeared to be blood on it. Hancock died from perforation to the lungs and penetration of the heart due to multiple stab wounds. 5.  B. Findings The court found there was reasonable, probable, and sufficient cause to believe the charges and enhancements alleged in counts 1 and 2 of the first amended complaint were committed and defendant was the person guilty thereof. VI. Information On November 1, 2023, the People filed an information charging defendant with the murder of Hancock (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1) and the attempted murder of Patricia (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 2). As to both counts, the People alleged a weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to count 2, the People alleged a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The People also alleged defendant had suffered a prior conviction that constituted a “strike” within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) Defendant entered not guilty pleas as to both counts and denied all enhancements and priors. VII. No Contest Pleas The parties appeared on March 20, 2025, and defense counsel indicated defendant would be entering a no contest plea on count 1 to second degree murder and would admit the prior strike allegation, with an agreed upon maximum sentence of 30 years to life. The court confirmed that defendant initialed and signed a felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form in this case. The form indicated defendant’s understanding that he would plead no contest to second degree murder on count 1 and would admit the prior strike allegation for “30 years to life as a lid.” Defendant initialed paragraphs indicating the plea was entered following an opportunity to speak with his attorney regarding the case. He initialed additional paragraphs acknowledging the consequences of a guilty plea, his constitutional rights, and his waiver of those rights. The court confirmed that defendant had reviewed his rights with his attorney, understood them, and wished to give them up to take advantage of the plea agreement. The court confirmed defendant understood the consequences of his plea, including 6. immigration consequences and consequences to any form of then-current term of supervised release. The court confirmed defendant’s understanding that he could be sentenced to a maximum term of 30 years to life. Defendant then entered his plea of no contest to count 1 and admitted the strike allegation. Pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, the parties stipulated that the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the plea. The court found defendant had freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his constitutional and statutory rights and entered his plea of no contest. The court accepted the plea, found a factual basis for the plea, found defendant guilty on count 1 and also found the prior strike allegation true. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. VIII. Sentencing On April 29, 2025, the People filed a statement in aggravation, alleging factors in aggravation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)–(3), (b)(1), and (b)(3). The People also alleged factors in mitigation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(13). The People urged the court not to exercise its discretion to strike the prior strike allegation pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The People asked the court to sentence defendant on count 1 to a term of 15 years to life, doubled due to the strike, for a total term of 30 years to life. On May 14, 2025, defendant filed a request to dismiss the prior strike pursuant to Romero on the ground the strike was more than five years old and he suffered from serious mental illness that significantly reduced his culpability in relation to the offense. He also argued factors in mitigation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(2), (b)(10), and (b)(13), and that the court had discretionary authority to dismiss the strike pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(C), (c)(2)(D), and (c)(2)(H). He asserted he presented only a minimal risk to public safety because his offenses were committed only against family members or other individuals known to him. 7.  Defendant was sentenced on May 15, 2025. In addressing the Romero motion, the court stated the current offense “is as serious as they come.” Additionally, although the prior strike was 12 or 13 years old and therefore somewhat remote, that remoteness did not outweigh the court’s concerns for public safety. The court noted that defendant has a well-documented mental health diagnosis, but defendant also had insight into his potential for violence when off his medication. Based on these factors, the court determined it was not in the interests of justice to strike the prior strike allegation, and the Romero motion was denied. The court sentenced defendant on count 1 to a term of 15 years to life, doubled pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1) based on the prior strike. The court also awarded defendant 1,266 days of actual custody credits and imposed various fines, fees, and assessments. IX. Notice of Appeal Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause. On May 28, 2025, defense counsel filed a timely notice of appeal from the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. DISCUSSION As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief included counsel’s declaration that she advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of the Wende brief’s filing. By letter dated June 29, 2026, we invited defendant to submit additional briefing. He has not done so, and the time for doing so has elapsed. After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 8.