The People v. Vang CA3

Filed 8/30/13 P. v. Vang CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072408

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F04298)

v.

LUE VANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, we will provide a summary of the offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.

During an argument on June 22, 2012, defendant Lue Vang held the victim at knifepoint in the home they shared with their two children. Defendant pushed the victim to the floor two times, causing her to suffer pain.

1

A jury convicted defendant of false imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud and deceit (Pen. Code, § 236—count two) with personal use of a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife) (id., former § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and battery on the mother of his children, a misdemeanor (id., § 243, subd. (e)(1)—count three). The jury was unable to reach a verdict on criminal threats (count one) and the trial court declared a mistrial on that count which was later dismissed.

The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation for a term of five years subject to certain terms and conditions including 365 days in jail. The court stayed sentence on count three, the misdemeanor battery offense, pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.