People v. Ta CA4/1

Filed 6/25/25 P. v. Ta CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083951

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD297976)

HIEN MINH TA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Lara Gressley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Hien Minh Ta of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a); count 1); unauthorized use of personal identifying information (§ 530.5(a); counts 3 & 4); and fraudulent possession of personal identifying information with a prior section 530.5 conviction (§ 530.5(c)(2); count 5). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating

she found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende requires. We offered Ta the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We modify the judgment to correct the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirm. I. Ta was charged with residential burglary based on the theft of a wallet from a truck parked in a garage connected to an apartment complex. Surveillance video showed a black car sneak into the parking garage behind a resident vehicle and later leave while the passenger “appeared to be going through the contents of the victim’s wallet.” The personal identifying information charges stemmed from the use of the victim’s credit cards at nearby retail stores that same evening. Because the black car was registered to Ta’s stepfather, not Ta, the prosecution sought to present brief testimony by two officers about prior contacts with Ta in the black car. The court granted the prosecution’s motion on the condition “there is no mention of why there was a stop, just that there was a contact.” With that sanitation, the court determined “the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect” because the testimony “goes straight to the identity at issue in this case.” The relevant trial testimony complied with the court’s directive to avoid any mention of why the officers encountered Ta and the black car. At trial, when discussing a past conversation with Ta’s stepfather, the investigating detective mentioned the man “was nervous, and he told me he was afraid of retaliation by his stepson.” The court sustained Ta’s counsel’s objection and granted his motion to strike the testimony. Later, outside the