People v. Doi Tat Le

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOI TAT LE, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 4, 2017

H043358 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2017)

Opinion

H043358

01-04-2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOI TAT LE, Defendant and Appellant.

Grover, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1485318)

Defendant Doi Tat Le appeals from a final judgment in a criminal action. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant has not done so.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court's direction in Kelly, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.)

I. WENDE/KELLY SUMMARY

Defendant was charged by information with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5; count 1), possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 2), and sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 3). The information alleged a prior conviction, residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459-460, subd. (a)), within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12).

According to the probation report, undercover City of San Jose police officers obtained search warrants for two residences after conducting four months' surveillance on defendant, whom they had reason to believe was selling narcotics. On September 10, 2013, as officers approached one of the residences to serve the warrant, defendant and another person fled in a car. The officers stopped the vehicle; defendant had $20,000 in cash in his front pocket, and a plastic bag containing .35 grams of a methamphetamine was found in the car. Inside the residence, the officers found a digital scale, packaging material, two frying pans, a portable stove burner, 5.66 grams of cocaine base, and a plastic bag containing powder cocaine. Defendant was arrested.

At the second residence, police found a digital scale, $250 in cash, a plastic bag containing 2.42 grams of cocaine, and a plastic bag containing 22.89 grams of heroin. A man at that residence, who was also arrested, took responsibility for the activity at that location.

Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2, and he admitted the prior strike allegation. He filed a motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss the strike allegation, attributing his criminal conduct to a drug addiction and requesting treatment. The court denied the motion, and defendant was sentenced to six years (a doubled middle term) on counts 1 and 2, to run concurrently. Count 3 was dismissed.

The court imposed a $3,360 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $3,360 suspended parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $100 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5) plus penalty assessments,¹ a $300 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7) plus penalty assessments,² an $80 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $60 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $129.75 criminal justice administration fee to the City of San Jose (Gov. Code, § 29550.1).

1 The penalty assessments totaled $310. (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (a)(1) ($100); Pen. Code, § 1465.7 ($20); Gov. Code, § 70372 ($50); Gov. Code, § 76000 ($70); Gov. Code, § 76000.5, subd. (a)(1) ($20); Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)(1) ($10); Gov. Code, § 76104.7, subd. (a) ($40).)

2 The penalty assessments totaled $930. (Pen. Code, § 1464, subd. (a)(1) ($300); Pen. Code, § 1465.7 ($60); Gov. Code, § 70372 ($150); Gov. Code, § 76000 ($210); Gov. Code, § 76000.5, subd. (a)(1) ($60); Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)(1) ($30); Gov. Code, § 76104.7, subd. (a) ($120).) --------

II. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. We dispose of defendant's related petition for writ of habeas corpus in case No. H044134 by separate order filed today.

/s/_________

Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

/s/_________ Rushing, P.J. /s/_________ Premo, J.