People v. Smith CA5

── People v. Smith CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Smith CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F086949 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF189455B) v. JOSHUA SMITH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Gregory A. Pulskamp, Judge. William Safford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Kelly E. LeBel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION In 2022, appellant Joshua Smith was with his codefendant Ronald Goosby1 when appellant fired multiple shots that struck two victims, both of whom survived. In 2023, a jury convicted appellant of premeditated attempted murder (Pen Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a);2 count 2) and two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 3 & 4). In all three counts, the jury found true gang enhancement allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found true that appellant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Appellant received a determinate sentence of 19 years and a consecutive aggregate term of 40 years to life. Appellant raises six claims in this appeal, including alleged instructional and sentencing errors, insufficiency of the evidence, a contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial, and cumulative error. We affirm. BACKGROUND The charges in this case arise from a shooting captured on surveillance video. The incident occurred in the parking lot of a gas station and convenience store. It was undisputed at trial that appellant was the only shooter during this incident, and he was the one who shot the victims. I. The Shooting. The confrontation began when Goosby and one of the victims, Dymon Ford, began throwing gang signs at each other.3 A short time later, appellant appeared on the 1 In the nonpublished opinion in the companion case, People v. Goosby (Nov. 4, 2025, F086856), we resolved Goosby’s claims and affirmed the judgment. In January 2026, the California Supreme Court denied review. (People v. Goosby, Jan. 22, 2026, S294322.) 2 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 3 During closing argument, Goosby’s trial counsel admitted that Goosby has gang tattoos, he was “throwing signs that night,” and he was “wearing gang paraphernalia.” 2. scene, and he walked towards Goosby. They stood near each other in the parking lot for one or two seconds.4 Appellant told the jury that, during this brief encounter with Goosby, they greeted each other.5 Appellant proceeded toward the store, walking past Ford and positioning himself just outside the store. Goosby approached Ford directly and engaged him in conversation. After engaging with For