Court Opinion

ID: 9899907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 21:05:14.016556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:54.153853
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/17/23 P. v. Xiong 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098234

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. CRF22-1494)

           v.

 LUCY XIONG,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Lucy Xiong has asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding none, we will affirm the
judgment.
         We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

                                                             1
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Defendant and a male companion forced their way in to the 93-year-old victim’s
apartment. Defendant’s companion struck the victim with a firearm, knocking her to the
floor, placed the gun barrel in her mouth, and demanded money. Defendant and her
companion took the victim’s purse containing her bank card, as well as a cell phone and a
jar containing $300 in quarters. Defendant used the victim’s bank card to withdraw
money from an ATM.
       Defendant was charged with home invasion robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5,
subd. (a)),1 first degree burglary with an allegation that the offense constituted a violent
felony (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)),
assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243,
subd. (d)), elder abuse with a special allegation that the victim suffered great bodily
injury (§ 368, subd. (b)(1), (2)), conspiracy (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)), identify theft (§ 530.5,
subd. (a)), and misdemeanor theft by use of an access card (§ 484g).
       Defendant entered into a plea agreement stipulating to a consecutive sentence of
the upper term of six years for first degree burglary and one year (one-third the middle
term) for elder abuse, for a total aggregate sentence of seven years. Defendant admitted
the violent felony allegation. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges and struck
the great bodily injury enhancement on the elder abuse count.
       The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison in accordance
with the plea agreement.
       We granted defendant’s request to file a notice of appeal under the constructive
filing doctrine and deemed the notice of appeal timely. Defendant requested a certificate
of probable cause, which the trial court denied.

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
                                      DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of her right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /s/
                                                 EARL, P. J.

We concur:

    /s/
ROBIE, J.

    /s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                             3