1 

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Thammavong CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Glenn) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

CHANH THAMMAVONG, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C072107 

(Super. Ct. No. 12NCR09342) 

 Appointed counsel for defendant Chanh Thammavong 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to 

defendant, we affirm the judgment. 

 We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) 
2 

 Defendant was charged with transportation of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11379, subd. (a).) He waived his right to a jury trial and submitted the matter to 

the court based on the following stipulated facts: “On February 11, 2012 at 

approximately 3:19 p.m. Orland Police Officer Kyle Cessna was on patrol, driving a 

marked OPD police vehicle. On Fifth St. north of Tehama St. within the City of Orland, 

Cessna observed an individual riding a bicycle. The bicyclist was heading south on Fifth 

St., the same direction as Cessna was travelling. There is a stop sign on the corner of 

Fifth and Tehama, regulating traffic on Fifth St. Officer Cessna observed that the 

bicyclist failed to stop for [the] stop sign, and just continued across Tehama on Fifth. 

The bicyclist then cut diagonally across Fifth St. and [Officer Cessna] got the rider’s 

attention by honking the horn on the patrol car. The bicyclist looked back at the patrol 

car and Officer Cessna recognized him as [defendant]. Cessna motioned for [defendant] 

to come to Cessna’s location at the patrol car. As [defendant started] to walk toward 

Cessna, Cessna observed the defendant reach into his pants pocket and then put his hands 

behind his back. Cessno [sic] could see that [defendant] was holding something in his 

hand, but could not tell what it was. Cessna started to walk toward the defendant and saw 

the defendant drop what appeared to be a pack of gum and start to walk toward Cessna. 

Cessna felt that the defendant was trying to conceal something by his actions; he decided 

to detain [defendant]. [Defendant] was handcuffed and asked to sit on the curb. Cessna 

picked up the packet of gum that defendant had dropped. Cessna opened the pack and 

[saw] some white tissue paper. Inside the tissue paper was a piece of white plastic [] tied 

with a knot. Inside the knotted piece of plastic was a white crystalline substance, which 

Cessna believed was methamphetamine. [Defendant] was arrested and the white plastic 

and its contents were seized. 

 “Officer Cessna, later in the day on June 29, weighed and tested the white 

crystalline substance. It tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine and 

weighed out to approximately .2 grams, net weight. Subsequent laboratory testing 
3 

confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine. Senior Criminalist Kirsten Wallace 

of the California Department of Justice, Chico Laboratory tested the substance and 

verified that it was methamphetamine. The net weight of the methamphetamine 

submitted to the crime lab was .10 grams. Both Officer Cessna and Criminalist Wallace 

would offer an opinion, based upon training and experience, that .10 grams of 

methamphetamine is a ‘usable amount’ of the drug.” 

 The trial court found defendant guilty of transportation of methamphetamine, 

suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on probation on the condition he 

serve 10 days with credit for time served. The trial court also imposed various fines and 

fees, including a $200 penal fine and a $240 restitution fine. 

 Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, 

§ 1237.5.) 

 Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 

received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the 

entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable 

to defendant. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 RAYE , P. J. 

We concur: 

 ROBIE , J. 

 HOCH , J.