Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Oliver CA4/1

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: D083409

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/2/26 P. v. Oliver CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083409

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE404677)

GIANNI ADRIAN OLIVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Sherry M. Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.
Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Gianni Adrian Oliver appeals from his 18-count conviction stemming
from a shootout with the police. His appointed appellate counsel filed an
opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; Oliver did not
file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms
there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2021, police received a report that Oliver discharged a
firearm inside the home of his girlfriend, Roni Reed, and that Oliver was
potentially holding Reed hostage. Knowing that Oliver had a previous felony
conviction for possessing a firearm, approximately 10 deputies responded to
Reed’s house. Using a loudspeaker, a deputy ordered Oliver and Reed to exit
the house multiple times. Reed eventually emerged from her home, stating
that the person who beat her was no longer present.
Reed argued with the police, asserting she no longer needed help. Reed
stated she was alone in the home, but officers observed a person peeking
through an upstairs window. Unable to obtained Reed’s consent, the officers
eventually entered the home to verify that Reed was safe.
When an officer attempted to prevent Reed from walking away from
him and toward the home’s interior staircase, Oliver descended the stairs and
began shooting at the officers. One of Oliver’s bullets struck Reed in the
back. After returning fire, officers exited the residence with Reed. Oliver
went to the second story balcony, initiating a gun battle with the officers
outside.
Oliver eventually surrendered and deputies arrested him. Police
searched the residence, finding four firearms and several magazines of
ammunition.

2
The San Diego District Attorney’s Office charged Oliver with five

counts of attempted murder on a peace officer (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a),
884, subd. (e)(1); counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9), five counts of assault on a peace officer
with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (d)(2); counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10); two
counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 11 &
12); four counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1);
counts 13–16); possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from
owning a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 17); and robbery (§ 211; count

182). Prosecutors alleged that counts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 were willful,
deliberate and premeditated (§ 189); Oliver personally discharged or used
a firearm in counts 1-12 (§§ 12022.53, subds. (c) & (d), 12022.5, subd. (a));
and inflicted great bodily injury on Reed in counts 1–4 and 11 (§ 12022.7,

subd. (a)).3
After hearing testimony from the officers involved in the shoutout and
watching their body worn camera footage, a jury convicted Oliver of counts 1–
17, finding true all allegations. The trial court sentenced Oliver to 125 years
to life in prison, plus a concurrent 7 years and 8 months. Oliver received 15-
year-to-life terms for counts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, and 25-year-to-life sentences for
the firearm enhancements in counts 1 and 3. The concurrent determinate
term consisted of six years for count 11, eight months for count 13, and one
year for count 18, with concurrent eight-month terms for counts 14–17. The
trial court struck the infliction of great bodily injury enhancements in counts

1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
2 Count 18 involved a separate incident on January 31, 2021, where
Oliver took a necklace from a juvenile. Oliver pleaded guilty to that count.
3 The People initially alleged that counts 1–17 were committed while
Oliver was released on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)), but later dismissed those
allegations.
3
1–4 and 11, and the firearm enhancements for counts 5–11. The trial court
imposed but stayed sentences for counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, as well as the
firearm enhancements for counts 2 and 4.
Oliver filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel
filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record
for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified three potential
issues to assist us in our independent review: (1) whether the trial court
erred in determining there was no discoverable information in an in camera

Pitchess4 hearing; (2) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury
on a peace officer’s lawful performance of duties; and (3) whether the trial
court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive firearm enhancements
totaling 50 years to life in counts 1 and 3.
Oliver has not filed a supplemental brief despite his counsel and this
court informing him of his right to do so.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders,
including the confidential material from the Pitchess hearing, and we
considered the issues identified by Oliver’s counsel. We find no arguable
issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment, and no
abuse of discretion by the trial court in its Pitchess ruling. We therefore
affirm the judgment. Competent counsel has represented Oliver on this
appeal.

4 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DO, J.

5