Court Opinion

ID: 9955452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:02:53.647768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:42.689871
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/24 P. v. Yath CA1/2
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                       A168352
 v.
 PENROTHANA YATH,                                                      (Sonoma County
                                                                       Super. Ct. No. SCR-752011-1
           Defendant and Appellant.
                                                                       & SCR750937-1)

         Penrothana Yath was placed on formal probation pursuant to a plea
agreement that resolved two criminal cases. When he subsequently admitted
violations of probation, the trial court ordered execution of the previously
suspended stipulated sentence specified in his plea agreement. On his appeal
from that order, Yath’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which he raises no issue
and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Counsel attests
that he advised Yath of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Yath has
not filed one.
         Having examined the entire record in accordance with Wende, we agree
with counsel that there are no arguable issues requiring further briefing and
affirm.

                                                               1
                               BACKGROUND
      On December 2, 2021, Jesus Rivas-Reynoso called the Santa Rosa
police and said he was following his Honda Civic, which had been stolen. An
officer was dispatched and initiated a traffic stop when the vehicle parked.
The driver, Yath, said he had borrowed the car from “Jose.” A records check
revealed Yath had an active misdemeanor warrant and he was arrested.
      Rivas-Reynosa said he had never met Yath, who did not have
permission to take the car. The key in the ignition was for a Saturn rather
than a Honda and the ignition cylinder was loose within the steering column;
it appeared the Saturn key had been forced into the ignition in order to drive
the car.
      A complaint filed on December 10, 2021, charged Yath with three
offenses committed on or about December 2, 2021: felony driving or taking a
vehicle (1998 Honda) without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a))
(count 1), felony receiving stolen property (1998 Honda) (Pen. Code, § 496d,
subd. (a)) (count 2), and misdemeanor possession of burglar’s tools (id.,
§ 466.) (count 3). In connection with counts 1 and 2, it was alleged that Yath
had three prior automobile theft-related convictions (id., § 666.5), two for
violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and one for violating
Penal Code section 496d.
      On January 4, 2022, a Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy noticed a Toyota
being driven without a front license plate, with a non-functioning rear license
plate light and non-functioning brake light. A records check showed the
license plate belonged to a BMW and the officer initiated a traffic stop. The
driver, Yath, did not have any paperwork for the vehicle, which he said he
had purchased a couple of days before from a man named Miguel who was
supposed to call and meet him with the paperwork.

                                       2
      Yath admitted he had a knife on his person and a “ ‘pipe’ ” in his
pocket. A search revealed a folded knife in Yath’s waistband and a broken
pipe and a Zyrtec medication bottle containing 3.4 grams of
methamphetamine in his jacket pocket. Yath’s wallet contained a credit card
in the name of Lucas Cotton and two checks issued by a credit union in the
name of Noelle Alvey. A records check indicated the car had been reported
stolen on December 29, 2021. Officers searched the car, found two vehicle
certificate titles belonging to Abdul Majid and Jose Gomez, and noticed the
key in the ignition did not belong to the vehicle. Yath had two active
warrants. He admitted he thought it was “odd” for a person he had recently
met to sell him a vehicle with no registration for $630 but said he was
“ ‘high’ ” at the time. He admitted the methamphetamine was his, said he
had stolen the credit cards and title certificates out of people’s vehicles and
found the checks in front of a laundromat. He was arrested.
      A complaint filed on February 2, 2022, charged Yath with five offenses
committed on or about January 5, 2022: felony driving or taking a vehicle
(1996 Toyota Corolla) without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851,
subd. (a)) (count 1); felony receiving stolen property (1996 Toyota Corolla)
(Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)) (count 2); misdemeanor receiving stolen
property with value not exceeding $950 (license plates, personal checks,
certificates of title, credit cards) (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) (count 3);
misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11377, subd. (a)) (count 4); and misdemeanor petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484,
subd. (a)) (count 5). Counts 1 and 2 each included two special allegations of
prior convictions for automobile theft (Pen. Code, § 666.5) for the two prior
Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), convictions. It was additionally

                                          3
alleged that the charged offenses were committed while Yath was released
from custody on bail or own recognizance. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.)
      On March 24, 2022, Yath entered into a plea agreement pursuant to
which, in each of cases SCR-750937-1 and SCR-752011-1, he entered a plea of
no contest to one count of automobile theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and
admitted the prior automobile theft conviction and on bail allegations (Pen.
Code, §§ 666.5,1 12022.1), with the remaining counts to be dismissed. The
plea agreement stated a stipulated custody term of seven years, six months
for the automobile theft and on-bail enhancement in SCR-752011-1 plus a
consecutive one year in SCR-750937-1. The agreement specified that
sentence would be imposed with execution suspended and Yath would be
placed on two years’ probation with the requirement that he complete a
residential drug treatment program at Turning Point. Yath also entered a
plea of no contest in a trailing misdemeanor case.2
      On May 23, 2022, defense counsel was relieved and new counsel was
appointed for Yath. Yath then filed a Faretta3 motion, which was granted.
Yath filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which was denied after a hearing on
August 2, 2022.

      1  The court referred to the prior conviction enhancement as Penal Code
section 667.5, subdivision (a). This appears to be a misstatement: The
complaints alleged enhancements under Penal Code section 666.5 and Penal
Code 667.5—pertaining to enhancements for prior prison terms served for
violent felonies—would not apply to the present case.

      2 As indicated in the probation reports, prior to the present offenses

Yath had a lengthy history of misdemeanor and felony convictions for theft
and drug offenses, with multiple violations of conditional sentences and
probation.
      3 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.

                                       4
      At sentencing on August 8, 2022, it was agreed that Yath would enter
the Delancey Street program, to which he had been accepted. The court
suspended execution of the seven-year term and placed Yath on 24 months’
formal probation with various conditions.4 He was transported to Delancey
Street on August 30, 2022.
      On September 21, 2022, a request for summary revocation of probation
and issuance of a bench warrant was filed alleging that Yath left the court-
ordered treatment program on September 14, prior to successfully completing
the program, and had not reported to the probation department since.5 On
December 16, 2022, the probation department filed a supplemental report
stating that Yath was arrested for misdemeanor possession of a controlled
substance (fentanyl) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf.
Code, §§ 11350, 11364) on December 14. Counsel was appointed for Yath and
the matter was continued a number of times over the next months. At a
hearing on May 15, 2023, Yath sought to have different counsel appointed
and, after a Marsden6 hearing, the court denied his request.

      4 On January 4, 2023, Yath filed a notice of appeal from the August 8,

2022, order and request for a certificate of probable cause. The appeal was
rejected by the superior court clerk as inoperative/untimely.
      5 Yath subsequently stated in a May 2023 interview that he left

Delancey Street because his mother is elderly, his niece needed help and his
brother was not helping. He said he would be willing to return if given the
opportunity but also said he did not know what would be different and was
not sure he would be able to complete the program. He accepted blame for
having Pruno in his jail cell. The probation department’s report stated Yath
had been found in possession of Pruno on three separate occasions since
entering custody in December 2022.
      6 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

                                      5
      On May 31, 2023, the court advised Yath of his hearing rights and Yath
waived those rights and admitted the probation violations. The court found
the waivers and admissions knowing, voluntary and intelligent, found Yath
guilty of the violations, terminated probation unsuccessfully, ordered Yath’s
previously suspended sentence into effect, and awarded a total of 750 credits.
      Yath filed timely notices of appeal on July 3, 2023.
                                DISCUSSION
      Pursuant to Wende, we are required “to conduct a review of the entire
record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific
issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
p. 441; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
      This appeal is from the orders finding Yath in violation of probation
and ordering execution of the sentence that had previously been imposed
with execution suspended. At the Marsden hearing on May 15, 2023, after
hearing Yath’s reasons for believing his appointed attorney was not helping
him and counsel’s response, the trial court found the attorney had properly
represented Yath and would be able to continue to do so. The trial court
advised Yath of his right to a hearing on the probation violations and found
his waiver of rights and admission of the probation violations knowing,
voluntary and intelligent. Yath was sentenced in accordance with the
stipulated sentence specified in his plea agreement, which consisted of the
upper term of four years for the automobile theft with a prior automobile
theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)) in SCR-
752011-1, two years for the on-bail enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) in
that case, and a consecutive one-third middle term of one year for the
automobile theft with a prior automobile theft in SCR-752011-1. He was

                                       6
awarded custody and conduct credits pursuant to the probation department’s
calculation.
      Our review of the record reveals no arguable issues requiring further
briefing.
                                DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                    STEWART, P. J.
We concur.

MILLER, J.

MAYFIELD, J. *

People v. Yath (A168352)

      * Judge of the Superior Court of Mendocino County, assigned by the

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                       7