People v. Duong CA4/3

Filed 9/5/14 P. v. Duong 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049330

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12NF2639)

HANH TAN DUONG, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Harry Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Hanh Tan Duong on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on his behalf. Duong was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and Duong did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. The Wende court explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they have merit or fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Duong did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel requested this court conduct its own review but also provided an extensive list of issues for the court to consider. Counsel questioned whether: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the prosecution needed to prove Duong’s knowledge the victims were loss prevention officers and had a possessory interest in the property; (2) Duong was 1 competent to waive his Miranda rights given his voluntary drug intoxication; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the element of force required for robbery; (4) the court erred in allowing the admission of Duong’s prior convictions and incidents at Home Depot; (5) the court erred in denying Duong’s request to dismiss the strike prior