1 Filed 11/25/14 P. v. Huynh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

## COPY

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

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. THANG HUYNH, Defendant and Appellant. C075664 (Super. Ct. No. 13F02939)

This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). On May 9, 2013, Y. Doe and her live- in boyfriend, defendant Thang Huynh, argued over money and her suspicion that he had another girlfriend. The argument turned physical when defendant pushed her onto the sofa, he ld her behind her neck with one of his hands, and covered he r mouth and nose with the othe r hand. He threatened to
break her neck and to kill her family. Afraid, she cried and was able to get up and leave2 the residence. She returned later to see if he had calmed down. Inst ead, he still wanted to kill her whole family and she left again. She suffered red marks and a small scratch on
her face. Defendant testified and claimed that while arguing, she tried to hug him but he pushed her aside, causing he r to fall on the sofa. A jury convicted defendant of misdemeanor battery on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e)(1)) and acquitted him of felony criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted formal probation for three years subject to certain terms and conditions in cluding 90 days in jail and participation in a batterer’s treatment program, both terms stay ed for three months so defendant could
travel to Vietnam. Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 th e right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More th an 30 days elapsed and we
received no communication from defendant. We note an error in preparation of the criminal protective order. The trial court ordered the victim protected during the prob ationary period and the formal order of probation reflects the correct statutory au thority as Penal Code section 1203.097, subdivision (a)(2). The actual criminal prot ective order, however, checks the wrong box, reflecting that the order was authorized by Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (i), which does not apply because defendant wa s not convicted of violating Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a dispositi on more favorable to defendant.3 D ISPOSITION The trial court is directed to prepar e a corrected criminal protective order, reflecting the correct statutory authority as Penal Code section 1203. 097, and to forward a corrected copy to defendant and prob ation. The judgment is affirmed.

HULL , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

BLEASE , J.