People v. Barcklay CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 1/20/23 P. v. Barcklay CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, C096793
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE005099)
v.
MARK EDWIN BARCKLAY,
Defendant and Appellant.
On March 7, 2019, defendant Mark Edwin Barcklay drove to the victim’s home
and fired “the entire magazine of his 9mm Taurus handgun” into the home. He then
disposed of the gun. The victim was struck by gunfire while lying in his bed. One of the
bullets lodged in his spine, leaving him paralyzed. Defendant later admitted to police
officers that he fired a gun at the house because he was “intoxicated” and “ ‘fed up’ with
his home and son being shot at.”
The People charged defendant with discharging a firearm into an inhabited
dwelling and attempted murder. The People alleged defendant personally used a firearm,
1
discharged a firearm, and caused great bodily injury. The People also alleged multiple
aggravating circumstances.
On April 27, 2022, defendant entered a no contest plea to the attempted murder
charge and admitted discharging a firearm; the remaining charges and allegations were
dismissed. Defendant stipulated to a term of 27 years in state prison. The court awarded
defendant 1,412 days of custody credit and ordered him to pay various fines and fees,
including a restitution fine totaling $8,100, suspending a parole revocation fine of $8,100.
Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
Robie, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
Mauro, J.
/s/
Boulware Eurie, J.
3