People v. Dinh

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MINH SINDEY DINH, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Oct 5, 2020

C091055 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2020)

Opinion

C091055

10-05-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MINH SINDEY DINH, Defendant and Appellant.

Robie, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 15F06076)

This is the second appeal by defendant, Minh Sindey Dinh, from a sentence of nine years plus 65 years to life imposed by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of second degree murder and attempted murder, with enhancements for personally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury and personally discharging a firearm causing death.

In the first appeal, we remanded to the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike defendant's firearm enhancements, though we acknowledged "[t]he trial court's statements render[ed] [it] a close case." (People v. Dinh (Jan. 8, 2019, C085808) [nonpub. opn.] at p. 6.)

At a November 2019 hearing on remand, the trial court declined to strike the firearm enhancements, while noting that defendant "appear[ed] to be now remorseful for his crime," and "appear[ed] to have matured." The trial court explained that, in light of the "wreckage" that defendant caused, the "sentence that [the trial court] originally gave was not only appropriate . . . but absolutely demanded by . . . [a] sense of justice."

Defendant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (sentence) is affirmed.

/s/_________

Robie, J. We concur: /s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Murray, J.