People v. Richards CA1/5 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/1/23 P. v. Richards CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A164860
v.
ZANE BRONSON RICHARDS, (Del Norte County
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CRF21-9235)
Zane Bronson Richards appeals after a jury convicted him
of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury
and found true a great bodily injury enhancement. His appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues but seeking
our review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende). Our independent review of the record reveals no
arguable issues, so we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Benjamin V.1 was sitting at a slot machine at the Lucky 7
Casino when his brother, Allen V., returned from the bar and
said someone at the bar was “talking crap” about Asians and
wanted to fight him. Intending to deescalate the situation,
Benjamin walked over to the bar with Allen, sat down next to
The brothers share a common surname. For clarity, we
1
will use the brothers’ first names.
1
Richards, and asked “what’s up? What’s the issue between you
and my brother?”
Richards did not respond, so Benjamin stood up to leave.
Suddenly Richards punched him in the face, knocking him out.
Richards landed two more punches to Benjamin’s head as he lay
unconscious on the floor. Security footage of the assault was
played to the jury.
Richards’s blows dislodged both of Benjamin’s top front
teeth and broke one of his lower teeth. He also suffered a black
eye and eye pain; dizziness and light sensitivity; a fractured
upper jawbone; and facial pain and swelling.
Richards denied having said anything about Asians or
challenging Allen in any way. He testified he was sitting at the
bar when Benjamin, with Allen in tow, approached from behind,
said “I heard you were talking crap about Asians. Let’s handle it
as men,” and sat down next to him on his right. Allen was
standing behind Richards on his left. Richards felt “cornered” by
the two men. Afraid for his life, he struck Benjamin to defend
himself. He did not realize at the time that his initial blow
knocked Benjamin unconscious.
Richards was charged with assault by means of force likely
to produce great bodily injury (count one) and misdemeanor
battery (count two), with enhancements as to count one for
committing a hate crime and inflicting great bodily injury. The
court subsequently dismissed the hate crime allegation on the
district attorney’s motion.
The jury returned a guilty verdict on count one and found
the great bodily injury allegation true. The court imposed the
aggravated four-year term on count one and a consecutive three
years for the enhancement, for a total term of seven years, and
dismissed count two. It reserved victim restitution, revoked
probation and imposed concurrent one-year terms in two other
2
cases with credit for time served, and reserved jurisdiction over
restitution beyond a stipulated amount. The court imposed
protective orders as to Benjamin and Allen, a $300 restitution
fund fine (stayed until Richards started earning prison wages), a
$40 court operations assessment, and a $30 conviction
assessment. It imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation
restitution fine. Richards was awarded 246 actual and conduct
credits.
The court subsequently recalled the sentence and
resentenced Richards to the three-year midterm on count one
pursuant to a recent amendment to Penal Code section 1170
(Sen. Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2021, ch. 731, §
1.3), for a total term of six years.
DISCUSSION
Richards’s counsel has represented that he advised
Richards of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of
Richards’s rights to submit supplemental written argument on
his own behalf and request that counsel be relieved. Richards
has done neither of those things. This court has reviewed the
entire record on appeal for potential error. No issue requires
further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3
______________________
BURNS, J.
We concur:
____________________________
JACKSON, P.J.
____________________________
LANGHORNE, J.*
A164860
* Judge of the Napa County Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
4