1

Filed 6/19/15 P. v. Hoang 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THANH KIM HOANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

C077393

(Super. Ct. No. CRF134187)

Appointed counsel for defendant Thanh Kim Hoang asked this court to review the 

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our examination of the entire record, we will 

modify the judgment to dismiss two counts as provided in the plea agreement, and to 

award 16 days of presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment as modified. We will 

also direct the trial court to correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect 

the oral pronouncement of judgment.
2

I

City of West Sacramento Police Officer Daniel Gill responded to a vehicle 

accident. He saw a Toyota Prius with significant damage, and he also saw defendant and 

a man named Randolf standing over Randolf’s girlfriend Hope. Randolph and Hope had 

been passengers in the car. Hope was ejected from the car when it overturned. She was 

later pronounced dead at the scene. 

Defendant admitted he had been driving the car. Officer Gill observed defendant 

had bloodshot, watery eyes, his speech was slurred, and his breath smelled of alcohol. 

Defendant gave a blood sample approximately 30 minutes later, and his blood-alcohol 

content was 0.13 percent. 

An information charged defendant with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated 

(Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (b) -- count 1), driving under the influence of alcohol causing 

injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a) -- count 2), and driving with a blood-alcohol 

content of 0.08 or more causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b) -- count 3). 

As to the latter two counts, the information also alleged defendant personally inflicted 

great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and caused injury to multiple 

victims (Veh. Code, § 23558). 

Defendant pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 

percent or above causing injury and admitted the allegation that he had personally 

inflicted great bodily injury. The plea agreement provided that defendant would be 

sentenced to two years on count 3, plus a consecutive three years on the enhancement 

allegation, for an aggregate term of five years. The plea agreement also provided that 

the remaining counts would be dismissed. The trial court sentenced defendant consistent 

with the plea agreement, but it did not dismiss the remaining counts. The trial court 

ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $300 parole 

revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $50 crime lab analysis fee plus penalty 

assessments of $155 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), a $150 drug program fee plus 
3

penalty assessments of $465 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), a $40 court operations 

assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, 

§ 70373, subd. (a)(1)). 

Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. 

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel 

of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening 

brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

We have examined the entire record. At sentencing, the trial court did not dismiss 

the remaining counts (counts 1 and 2) as provided in the plea agreement. We will modify 

the judgment to dismiss those counts and the attendant enhancement allegations.

In addition, “[r]endition of the judgment is normally an oral pronouncement, 

and the abstract of judgment cannot add to, or modify, the judgment, but only purports 

to digest and summarize it. [Citation.]” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 

389.) At sentencing the trial court did not mention an award of presentence credit, but 

the minute order and abstract of judgment indicate that the trial court awarded 16 days 

of credit. Because it appears from the record that defendant was entitled to 16 days 

of presentence credit, we will order that credit, thereby rendering the minute order and 

abstract of judgment correct. 

Moreover, the minute order and abstract of judgment do not reflect the trial court’s 

oral imposition of a $50 crime lab analysis fee plus assessments of $155, or the $150 

drug program fee plus penalty assessments of $465. We will direct the trial court 

to correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement

of judgment in that regard.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to dismiss counts 1 and 2 and the attendant 

enhancement allegations, and to award 16 days of presentence credit. The judgment 

is affirmed as modified. The trial court is directed to correct the minute order and 

abstract of judgment to reflect the oral imposition of a $50 crime lab analysis fee plus 

assessments of $155, and a $150 drug program fee plus penalty assessments of $465. 

The trial court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract 

of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

 MAURO , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 RENNER , J.