People v. Wright CA2/1

── People v. Wright CA2/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 P. v. Wright CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE THE PEOPLE, B336101 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA133084) v. DERRICK DESHAE WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions. Correen Ferrentino, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Michael C. Keller and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________  Defendant Derrick Deshae Wright was convicted at a court trial on two counts of failure to update annually his sex offender registration within five working days of his birthday (i.e., July 21) in 2021 and 2022, in violation of Penal Code1 section 290.012. Wright’s obligation to register as a sex offender for life arises from his 1991 conviction for sodomy by force, in violation of section 286, subdivision (c). On appeal, Wright raises the following claims: (1) The trial court erred in admitting an inculpatory post-arrest statement Wright had made because the record does not disclose the contents of the Miranda2 advisements the interviewing detective gave, but just that the detective read off a “card”; (2) there is insufficient evidence to support Wright’s convictions because (a) the record does not show he resided in Los Angeles County or California in July 2021 and July 2022, and (b) the record lacks substantial evidence supporting the essential elements of actual knowledge of the duty to register and willful failure to do so, primarily because Wright and his wife claimed law enforcement personnel told Wright he no longer had to register as a sex offender; and (3) the court erred in imposing two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees and two $40 court operations assessment fees without first determining whether he had the ability to pay those fees. We reject Wright’s first two claims of error, vacate the $60 in criminal conviction assessment fees and $80 in court operations assessment fees, remand to the trial court to consider 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). 2 Wright’s ability to pay these ancillary costs, and affirm the remainder of the judgment. First, Wright forfeited his challenge to the adequacy of the Miranda advisements by failing to raise that claim below. Instead, Wright’s trial counsel suggested her Miranda objection rested solely on her claim that Wright did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his Miranda rights before he made the inculpatory statement. Second, Wright’s sufficiency-of- the-evidence claim fails because (a) the People did not have to prove Wright was a Los Angeles County resident in July 2021 and July 2022, (b) the record contains evidence from which the trial court reasonably could have inferred Wright remained a California resident during that timeframe, and (c) the trial court could reasonably have inferred that Wri