People v. Pham CA4/3

Filed 4/28/16 P. v. Pham 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052160

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15CF0089)

TRANG THU PHAM OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, W. Michael Hayes, Judge. Affirmed. Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Trang Thu Pham on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on her behalf. We gave Pham 30 days to file written argument on her own behalf. That time has passed, and Pham has not filed any written argument. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende 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 the appellant herself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Pham did not raise any issues herself. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel identified the following four issues: was there sufficient evidence to support Pham’s conviction for vandalism (Pen. 1 Code, § 594.3, subd. (a)) ; was Pham in custody when she made incriminating statements to officers; did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied Pham’s section 17, subdivision (b)(1), motion; and did the court impose invalid probation terms. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered the information provided by counsel. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. FACTS Saykya Sunnyata is a monk who has resided at the Huong Tich Buddhist Temple (the Temple) for over 20 years. Alice Hoa Nguyen (Alice) is the monk in charge 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.