People v. Saeyang CA3

Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Saeyang CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C103324

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFECOD20240009084) v.

KAOMUANG SAEYANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kaomuang Saeyang asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him, we will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2024, law enforcement executed a search warrant at a home in Stockon and found 22 firearms, large amounts of ammunition, and gun parts. Several of the firearms found were assault weapons. The People charged Saeyang with several firearm related offenses. Saeyang pled no contest to one count of possession of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a).)

1

The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Saeyang on two years of formal probation and 364 days in county jail. The court awarded him 20 days of custody credits. The trial court imposed the following fines and fees: a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a corresponding $300 probation revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of probation (Pen. Code, § 1202.44). Saeyang filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Saeyang was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from Saeyang. We have undertaken an examination of the record and conclude there is no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.