People v. Lo CA1/5

Filed 1/26/23 P. v. Lo CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165467 v. CAMDEN LO, (Solano County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FCR328007)

Defendant Camden Lo appeals from a postjudgment order resentencing him to 15 years to life with the possibility of parole for the second degree murder of his estranged wife, Wen Ying Lo. After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende) in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he declined to exercise this right. We have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth post, we agree with counsel no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s resentencing order.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In February 2017, defendant was involved in contentious divorce settlement proceedings with his estranged wife, Wen Ying Lo. The pair had a child, Stanley, in high school. Stanley, who also had a contentious relationship with his mother, lived in the family home in the San Francisco Bay Area with defendant. Wen Ying, after moving out of the family home, went to Southern California to live with her sister and Stanley’s siblings. On February 9, 2017, Wen Ying returned to the Bay Area to attend a court settlement conference scheduled for the next day. That evening, Wen Ying called 911, reporting that she was locked out of the family home despite having a right to spend the night there. Wen Ying eventually left but returned a few hours later when Stanley and defendant were home. She called Stanley, yelling angrily that she wanted to come inside to get her belongings. Defendant told Stanley not to let Wen Ying into the home because he was afraid of her. Stanley gave his phone to defendant. The parents argued. After the call ended, Wen Ying remained outside, yelling for about 30 minutes. Although the next day’s settlement conference was contentious, Wen Ying’s divorce lawyer later testified that defendant was calm and not angry. It was agreed Wen Ying would return to the family home at 4:00 p.m. to retrieve her belongings. Wen Ying asked her lawyer to accompany her, but he refused. Instead, the parties agreed only Stanley would be home when she arrived. After school, Stanley went to his family’s restaurant as usual, arriving about 3:30 p.m. Stanley testified that defendant seemed upset and