Filed 9/9/16 P. v. Price 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E065438
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1500222)
RANDY ANTONE PRICE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. W. Charles Morgan,
Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Randy Antoine Price, pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) A jury thereafter convicted
1
defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1; Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and
found true an allegation he had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim
(Pen. Code, §§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). Defendant later admitted
allegations he had suffered three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), one
prior serious felony (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), and a prior strike conviction (Pen.
Code, §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to
an aggregate term of 13 years’ imprisonment.
After defendant’s attorney filed a notice of appeal, 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 identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court should have
instructed the jury on the elements of self-defense in accordance with CALCRIM No.
3470. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant and the victim were friends who lived together. On April 9, 2015, they
engaged in an argument. The next evening, defendant was driving on a road where he
passed the victim and the victim’s female friend, who were walking alongside.
Defendant pulled the vehicle over and backed up. Defendant opened the trunk of the
vehicle and removed a crowbar.
2
The victim told defendant he did not want to fight. Defendant hit the victim on the
side of the head with the crowbar. The victim fell to the ground. Defendant left in the
vehicle. The victim and the female returned home where someone called the police.
The responding officer found the victim lying on the floor inside his home. The
victim had sustained an injury to the top of his head, which was bleeding. He appeared to
be going in and out of consciousness. The victim was transported to the hospital where
he received five staples to his head. Since the incident, the victim has had continual
migraine headaches and blurred vision in his left eye.
The victim’s female friend gave the officer a description of defendant and the
vehicle. When officers located the vehicle, an officer took the female to its location,
where she identified it as the vehicle driven by defendant. Inside the trunk of the car
officers found a tire iron. Officers found defendant’s hat with blood on it and blood on
the ground in the vicinity where the assault took place.
Officers went to a residence where defendant might be located. As they
approached the home, defendant fled outside, jumping over a fence. After officers
detained defendant, defendant waived his Miranda1 rights and spoke about the incident.
Defendant admitted pulling over after seeing the victim alongside the road. He admitted
opening his trunk. Defendant admitted punching the victim, but denied hitting him with
the tire iron.
1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3
II. DISCUSSION
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
SLOUGH
J.
4