People v. Hom CA3

Filed 7/15/22 P. v. Hom CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C094829

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF19002277) KOSAL HOM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kosal Hom asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I On September 24, 2019, M.M. obtained a domestic violence restraining order protecting her from defendant. The following day, defendant broke into M.M.’s home using a “knife or tool.” Defendant repeatedly told M.M. to “drop the restraining order.” He also said, “ ‘I’ve been plotting to kill you all day.’ ” M.M. persuaded defendant to put

1

the weapon down and he put it in his pocket. A neighbor heard the commotion and called 911. When law enforcement arrived, they announced themselves while knocking on the front door. Defendant attempted to hide M.M. in a closet but when he heard law enforcement breaking through the front door, he told M.M. to open the front door while he hid in the attic. M.M. complied and let law enforcement in. Once inside, law enforcement repeatedly ordered defendant to come out. After thirty minutes, defendant remained hidden; law enforcement went outside to use the public address system on their patrol car to order defendant out of hiding. Soon after, they heard a large crash inside the home, they went inside and saw defendant had fallen through the ceiling into M.M.’s bedroom. Defendant was arrested and the People subsequently charged him with numerous criminal offenses including first degree residential burglary of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 459). The People further alleged defendant personally used a dangerous weapon during the commission of his crimes. (Id., § 12022, subdivision (b)(1).) On March 9, 2020, defendant pleaded no contest to the burglary charge and admitted the dangerous weapon use allegation. In exchange for his plea, the People agreed they would move to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. The parties also agreed defendant would not immediately be sentenced to state prison. Prior to sentencing, the Probation Department (the Department) submitted a report noting, among other things, that defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation absent a finding of unusual circumstances. The Department concluded the seriousness of the offense outweighed any factors that may support a finding of unusual circumstances. The Department recommended that the trial court reject the plea offer and sentence defendant to prison. The trial court found the case presented unusual circumstances, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on five years of probation with numerous