People v. Brumfield CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Brumfield CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B347311

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA153257) v.

RAMAJE ERICEK BRUMFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________ Ramaje Ericek Brumfield appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction by no contest plea of two counts of possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code,1 § 30605, subd. (a), counts 7 & 8.) This case comes before us for review under the procedures prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In an information filed on October 4, 2021, Brumfield was charged with two counts of murder (§ 187, subd. (a), counts 1 & 2), three counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, counts 3, 4 & 5), and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1), count 9), in connection with an October 15, 2020 shooting. It was alleged as to counts 3, 4, and 5, that the attempted murders were committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. Brumfield was charged with carrying a loaded unregistered handgun (§ 25850, subd. (a), count 6) and possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a), count 7) in connection with a second incident that took place on November 23, 2020. Finally, Brumfield was charged with possession of an assault weapon on December 8, 2020. (§ 30605, subd. (a), count 8.) On October 18, 2021, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Brumfield’s competency to stand trial. The court found substantial evidence of incompetency and suspended criminal proceedings. On October 11, 2022, the court found Brumfield competent to stand trial and recommenced proceedings. On October 12, 2022, Brumfield requested to proceed in pro per. The court informed Brumfield that it would appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate him and then determine whether he was competent to represent himself.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 On November 21, 2022, defense counsel informed the court that Brumfield wanted the court to discharge her as his attorney and appoint new counsel. On February 1, 2023, the court heard and denied Brumfield’s motion to discharge appointed counsel. On March 15, 2023, the court heard and denied Brumfield’s second motion to discharge appointed counsel. On May 15, 2024, Brumfield filed a motion pursuant to section 1538.5 to suppress evidence seized on November 23, 2020. On May 21, 2024, the People filed an amended information adding factors in aggravation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.421. On May 22, 2024, the People filed an opposition to the motion to suppress evidence, and Brumfield filed an addendum to the motion to suppress to include evidence seized on November 5, 2020. Also on May 22, 2024, the court held a hearing pertaining to the evidence seized on November 23, 2020. Los Angeles Police Department Officer Carlos Gonzalez testified that at approximately 7:50 p.m. on November 23, 2020, he encountered a black Infiniti with its lights off parked in the middle of the road blocking traffic. Brumfield was standing by the open door of the vehicle. Minor R.F. was standing by an open door on the back passenger-side of the car. Officer Gonzalez testified that the vehicle posed a traffic hazard, so he and his partner Officer John Byun made contact with Brumfield and R.F. Brumfield reached into the front passenger compartment as the officers approached him. Officer Gonzalez could not see what Brumfield was doing, but suspected that Brumfield might be moving contraband. Officer Gonzalez asked Brumfield who owned the vehicle. Brumfield answered 3 that the Infiniti belonged to his cousin. Brumfield closed the open doors of the vehicle. Officer Gonzalez attempted to detain Brumfield, but Brumfield broke loose. The officer gave chase, but he soon observed that Brumfield’s hands were empty. He surmised that Brumfield was running because there was something in the vehicle. Officer Gonzalez returned to the Infiniti and detained R.F. Because the vehicle was locked and creating a traffic hazard, the officers contacted dispatch to arrange a police garage tow. Without the car doors being opened, Officer Gonzalez looked into the front passenger compartment and observed a rifle that was partially covered by a sweater on the Infiniti’s front passenger seat. When the tow truck arrived, officers unlocked the vehicle. Officer Gonzalez observed Officer Niemeyer recover the rifle from the front passenger compartment of the Infiniti; Officer Niemeyer unloaded the rifle of 30 live rounds. Officer Gonzalez also observed Officer Byun recover a 0.9 millimeter firearm from the driver compartment. Officer Gonzalez recovered a DMV printout of a driver’s permit with Brumfield’s information on it from the glovebox. Officer Gonzalez testified that it is standard procedure to impound a car under these conditions. It is also standard to perform an inventory search prior to impounding a vehicle. If a firearm is discovered, officers will continue to search the vehicle to determine whether other firearms are present and remove them prior to towing. The trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence discovered in the November 23, 2020 search of the Infiniti. The court found that a warrant was not required. The court 4 explained that the car was a traffic hazard, so the police had probable cause to investigate. The rifle was in plain view, and the pistol would have inevitably been discovered in an inventory search. On May 30, 2024, the People filed an opposition to the addendum to the motion to suppress evidence seized on November 5, 2020. Also on May 30, 2024, the court held a hearing pertaining to the motion to suppress evidence seized on November 5, 2020. Officer Gonzalez testified that on November 5, 2020, at approximately 6:50 p.m., he and three other officers encountered Brumfield and three other individuals, who the officers suspected were trespassing. Officer Gonzalez attempted to complete a field identification card for Brumfield. Brumfield provided the officer with his name and birthdate, but when the officer attempted to verify Brumfield’s identity, the search did not return any information. Officer Gonzalez notified Brumfield that he was trespassing. He advised Brumfield that he believed Brumfield provided false identification information. The officers handcuffed Brumfield and put him in the back seat of their patrol car. On cross-examination, Officer Gonzalez testified that he knew Brumfield was a suspect in a murder case before he contacted Brumfield on November 5, 2020. During the detention on November 5, 2020, Officer Gonzalez instructed Brumfield to lift his shirt and move his sleeves so he could look for tattoos. Brumfield had tattoos of his mother, sister, and grandfather. Brumfield did not admit to being a gang member, but Officer Gonzalez indicated on the field identification card that Brumfield was a Grape Street Crip gang member because the officer knew the individuals that Brumfield was with were gang members.

5 The trial court granted the motion to suppress with respect to the field identification card, but denied with respect to personal observations Officer Gonzalez made before he detained Brumfield. On June 3, 2024, Brumfield pleaded no contest in an open plea in counts 7 and 8 for two counts of possession of an assault weapon. (§ 30605, subd. (a).) Brumfield also admitted an aggravating factor pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.421, subdivision (b)(1). On June 4, 2024, the People announced unable to proceed on the remaining counts, but informed the trial court that the prosecution intended to re-file the case under a different case number that afternoon. The People explained that the field identification card and evidence connected to it that the court had ordered suppressed were central to the prosecution’s case. The court dismissed the charges pursuant to section 1382. The People refiled the charges in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9, in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24CMCF01048. On June 9, 2025, the trial court pronounced sentence both in the present case (Case No. TA153257) and in case No. 24CMCF01048. In case No. 24CMCF01048, the court imposed a determinate term of two years plus 50 years to life. In the present case, the court imposed two eight-month terms for the two counts of possession of an assault weapon; the court ordered the sentence to run consecutive to the sentence in case No. 24CMCF01048. Brumfield timely filed a notice of appeal, appealing the sentence in this case. The instant appeal is not taken from Case No. 24CMCF01048; that case is the subject of a separate appeal. We appointed counsel.

6 Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of this case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the record. On July 6, 2026, we advised Brumfield by letter that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished for us to consider. No response has been received to date. We have examined the entire record to identify issues that do not affect the validity of the plea. We are satisfied no such arguable issues exist and that Brumfield’s counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J. WE CONCUR:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

KIM (D.), J.