People v. Yang

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HYUN WOO YANG, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Aug 27, 2009

No. B209137 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HYUN WOO YANG, Defendant and Appellant. B209137 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division August 27, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA066627

THE COURT:^*

Hyun Woo Yang, also known as Samuel Sanglin Lee, appeals from a restitution order after judgment entered upon his no contest plea, pursuant to plea agreement, to one count of false personation (Pen. Code, § 529) ¹ and one count of attempted identity theft (§§ 664, 530.5, subd. (a).² Appellant admitted a prior felony strike within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and gave a Harvey ³waiver. The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate state prison term of four years eight months.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 As reflected in the information, minute order, abstract of judgment and “Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form,” the trial court’s reference when taking appellant’s plea to count 1 as a violation of section 459, rather than section 529, was inadvertent.

3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

The record fails to include the facts which formed the factual basis for the charges against appellant.

After pleading no contest, a restitution hearing was conducted at which appellant waived his presence. At the hearing, defense counsel contended that the named individual victims were not entitled to restitution as they suffered no losses because they were reimbursed for their losses by the banks. The trial court noted that it could order restitution to the individual victims against whom the banks would then have subrogation rights. To avoid going through that process, and because the banks were the out-of-pocket victims, the trial court ordered restitution directly to the banks, as follows: $13,563.06 to the Bank of America, $14,744.94 to Wilshire State Bank, $10,024.80 to City Bank, and $2,940.25 to H.S.B.C. Bank.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On April 29, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order under review is affirmed.