People v. Le

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TUYEN THANH LE, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Mar 7, 2006

No. H028821 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2006)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TUYEN THANH LE, Defendant and Appellant. H028821 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, March 7, 2006

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. BB405185

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 10, 2006, be modified in the following particulars:

1. On page 10, the first full paragraph beginning “Recognizing that trial counsel’s� is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:

Defendant elects to challenge the trial court’s order imposing a restitution fine of $4,800 and a corresponding parole revocation fine of $4,800 on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant states that the trial court “had the authority to impose a fine in any amount between the statutory minimum of $200 and the maximum of $10,000,� pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (a), and he “was thus required to object to the court’s improper exercise of sentencing discretion pursuant to the permissive statutory formula of section 1202.4 [, subdivision] (b)(2) if he wanted to seek reduction of the fine under the formula. [Citation].� Accordingly, defendant contends that “counsel’s failure to object and point out this clear error to the court deprived [defendant] of his right to effective assistance of counsel at sentencing . . . .�

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J., PREMO, ACTING P.J., DUFFY, J.