People v. Seechan CA5

Filed 8/21/24 P. v. Seechan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F087426 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF130050) v.

CHAVA SEECHAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge. James S. Thomson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2006, a jury convicted appellant of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 664/187, subd. (a)),1 three counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), and other related offenses and enhancements. Appellant was sentenced to 35 years to life, plus 41 years eight months in state prison. In 2023, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the trial court identifying an error in the indeterminate abstract of judgment. The CDCR noted that the indeterminate abstract of judgment reflected that, as to the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder count, the trial court incorrectly imposed an additional 15-year term pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5). In response to the CDCR’s letter, the trial court held a hearing and ordered the 15-year term stricken from the indeterminate abstract of judgment. This appeal is taken from the trial court’s order. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no error and asking this court to review the record and determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Appellant was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental letter or brief but failed to do so in the time allotted. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was convicted of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 1), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 2), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 3 and 7) and three counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); counts 4-6). The jury