P. v. Cameron CA1/4 filed
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 3/25/11 P. v. Cameron CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A130188 v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-072044-1) RAYMOND WILLIS CAMERON, Defendant and Appellant. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Raymond Willis Cameron pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) and assault with a firearm (id., § 245, subd. (a)(2)), and admitted two personal use of a firearm enhancement allegations (id., § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). The plea was entered in exchange for a prison sentence of 23 years and four months, and dismissal of the remaining charges. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with his plea. The facts set forth in the probation report establish that appellant exited a vehicle driven by another person and shot 19-year-old Frederick Tucker numerous times. Shots also entered a residence, shattering a window. Tucker died shortly thereafter at a hospital from the gunshot wounds sustained. Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 1 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude that there are no arguable issues.1 Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. His pleas and admissions were validly entered. There was no sentencing error and appellant received the bargained-for sentence. Judgment affirmed. _________________________ Reardon, J. We concur: _________________________ Ruvolo, P.J. _________________________ Sepulveda, J. 1 Appellant was advised by counsel of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
