Opinion
C098726
02-29-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KHAM MANEEWONG, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 20FE012101
Duarte, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant Kham Maneewong filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the record, we shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In July 2021, a jury found defendant guilty on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of child endangerment. The jury also found true an allegation that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on one of his (assault) victims. The trial court subsequently found true the allegation that, as a juvenile, defendant suffered a sustained petition for a strike offense. The court denied defendant's Romero motion, sentenced him to an aggregate term of 11 years in state prison, and imposed various fines and fees. Defendant appealed from the judgment, and on December 7, 2022, this court remanded the matter for resentencing in light of changes to Penal Code sections 654 and 1170, subdivision (b)(6). (See People v. Maneewong (Dec. 7, 2022, C094737) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, defendant filed a sentencing brief wherein he argued for low-term sentences in light of his childhood trauma and traumatic brain injury. He also renewed his Romero motion.
People v. Superior Court(Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497.
At the resentencing hearing held on May 26, 2023, the trial court again denied defendant's Romero motion. The court considered its newfound discretion under Penal Code section 654 as well as defendant's claim that his childhood trauma and traumatic brain injury contributed to his criminal conduct. The court also considered the codefendant's role in defendant's criminal conduct. On balance, the court concluded the low term was the more appropriate sentence on count one, assault with a deadly weapon, which the court designated as the principal term. Accordingly, the court imposed the low term of two years in prison on count one, doubled to four years due to the prior strike, one third the midterm of three years on count two, doubled due to strike prior to two years, and a stayed low term of two years on count three, doubled due to the strike prior to four years. The court added three years in prison for the great bodily injury enhancement, for an aggregate term of nine years in prison. The court imposed a $2,000 restitution fine and a stayed $2,000 parole revocation fine, as well as three $30 court facility/conviction fees and three $40 court security/operations fees. 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 this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note, as does defendant, that the abstract of judgment includes the incorrect amounts of the court facility/conviction fees as well as the court security/operations fees; each total appears to have been entered in the location intended for the other. We direct preparation of a corrected abstract.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment as described by this opinion and provide a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: Robie, Acting P. J., Ashworth, J.
[*] Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.