People v. Childress CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/17/26 P. v. Childress CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B346564

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 24LBCF00840)

KEON RAYMOND CHILDRESS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Amanda Carlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. On June 29, 2024, defendant Keon Childress and his longtime partner, Tanesha Olivas, were at a local park with her four minor children, two of whom were defendant’s biological children. Olivas was walking her dog when she observed defendant and her oldest son C.L., engaged in an altercation; she hurried over to intervene. Olivas inserted herself between the two and eventually fell to the ground on her back. While Olivas was lying on the ground, defendant stomped on her head. At some point, defendant punched Olivas in one or both of her eyes, causing injury including swelling, inability to open the eye for two days, light sensitivity, scarring to one of her eyeballs, and headaches. Olivas called the police. Responding police officers obtained an emergency protective order on Olivas’s behalf. The order prohibited defendant from going within 100 yards of Olivas, the four children, and the family apartment. Later that night, the police arrested defendant and served him with the emergency protective order. Two days later, officers were executing a search warrant at the family apartment when defendant arrived there. Olivas and the children were not at home. The officers arrested him for violating the emergency protective order. On July 24, 2024, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information charging defendant in count 1 with injuring his cohabitant or girlfriend, in violation of Penal Code1 section 273.5, subdivision (a), a felony; in count 2 with child abuse under conditions other than great bodily injury or death, in violation of section 273a, subdivision (b), a misdemeanor; and in count 3 with contempt of court for violating a criminal protective 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 order, in violation of section 166, subdivision (c)(1), a misdemeanor. On April 29, 2025, a jury found defendant guilty on count 1 and count 3, but found him not guilty on count 2. Defendant admitted to two circumstances in aggravation: that he suffered prior convictions increasing in seriousness (California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)), and that he had served a prior state prison term (id., rule 4.421(b)(3)). None of defendant’s prior convictions were for violent or serious felonies. On May 12, 2025, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years in state prison on count 1 and a concurrent 364 days in county jail on count 3. On May 30, 2025, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On February 23, 2026, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On the following day, we notified defendant that appointed counsel had filed an opening brief that did not raise any issues and defendant had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments that he wished us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. We reviewed the record and found one clerical error. The abstract of judgment reflects the appropriate sentence but states that defendant is “sentenced to prison per PC 1170(a) or 1170(h)(3) due to current or prior serious or violent felony.” This is erroneous. Defendant has not committed a prior serious or violent felony. The contemporaneous crime of violating section 273.5, subdivision (a) is neither a serious nor a violent felony; it 3 can become serious and/or violent when combined with a true finding on a great bodily injury allegation. (See § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8) [serious felony]; § 667.5, subd. (c)(8) [violent felony]; and § 12022.7 [great bodily injury].) Here, there was no such allegation. Defendant was sentenced to prison pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (a)(3). On June 3, 2026, we invited the parties to address whether the abstract of judgment contained the aforementioned clerical error. The parties agreed it did and should be corrected. We are satisfied that defendant’s appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

4 DISPOSITION

The felony abstract of judgment is modified to reflect that defendant was sentenced to prison pursuant to “PC 1170(a)(3)” instead of “to prison per PC 1170(a) or 1170(h)(3) due to current or prior serious or violent felony.” As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.