People v. Sok CA4/3

Filed 8/18/25 P. v. Sok CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064276, G064353

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09WF2166)

DUYEN KIM SOK, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Duyen Kim Sok of attempted murder. He filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court denied at the prima facie stage.1 On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief, requesting that we independently review the record for error under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We have exercised our discretion per Delgadillo but have found no arguable issues. Thus, we affirm the court’s postjudgment order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2013, a jury found Sok guilty of one count of attempted murder. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) It also found true that in committing this offense, Sok used a deadly weapon—a knife—and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a).) Sok was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the attempted murder count plus nine consecutive years for the enhancements and certain prior strikes that were found true.2 Sok filed a resentencing petition under section 1172.6 in March 2024, and was later appointed counsel. The trial court dismissed his petition following a prima facie hearing. It found, “A review of the record of conviction, including the instructions presented to the jury at trial makes clear there was no natural and probable consequences theory upon which the