Court Opinion

ID: 9899038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 20:03:40.029173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:20.176047
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/15/23 P. v. Phan CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G061843

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 22WF1565)

 SANG VAN PHAN,                                                        OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Scott A.
Steiner, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.
                   Jeanine G. Strong, appointed by Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
                   Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and
Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                      *                  *                  *
               Sang Van Phan appeals from an 11-year sentence for attempted voluntary
manslaughter. He contends the trial court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for
a presumptive low-term sentence due to a prior traumatic brain injury pursuant to Penal
                                      1
Code section 1170, subdivision (b).       As discussed below, we conclude that appellant has
not shown he was statutorily eligible. Appellant also contends the abstract should be
corrected to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. We agree, and remand
the matter to the trial court to correct the abstract.
                                            FACTS
               On February 12, 2022, appellant and the victim A.M. engaged in a verbal
and physical altercation in the parking lot of a grocery store. During the physical
altercation, the victim managed to get on top of appellant and punched his face multiple
times. Appellant seized a knife from the victim and stabbed him in the neck. The victim
grabbed his neck and walked toward the entrance of the grocery store. Appellant
followed the victim and made stabbing motions at the victim’s back. The victim entered
the store and sat down. When appellant tried to enter the store, a store employee yelled at
him to get out. Appellant, who appeared calm, dropped the knife near the shopping cart
corral and then left the scene.
               Appellant was charged, via information, with two counts of assault with a
deadly weapon, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 1 and 3), and one count of attempted
murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd (a); count 2). As to all counts, it was alleged that
appellant personally used a deadly weapon, and as to counts 1 and 2, it was alleged that
he caused great bodily injury (GBI). It was further alleged that appellant had suffered a
prior “strike” conviction under the Three Strikes law, and a prior serious felony
conviction. Finally, as to all counts, factors in aggravation were alleged under California
Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(1) & (2) and 4.421(b)(1) & (2).

1
               All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                2
              Following a bench trial, the court found appellant guilty of counts 1 and 3,
assault with a deadly weapon. As to count 2, the court found appellant not guilty of
attempted murder, but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted
voluntary manslaughter. It found true the GBI enhancement allegations as to counts 1
and 2, and the deadly weapon enhancement allegations as to count 2 only. The court
found true the prior strike allegation and prior serious felony allegation. With respect to
the factors in aggravation, as to all counts, the count found true that the offenses involved
great violence, great bodily harm, the threat of great bodily harm, and “other acts
disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, and callousness. . . .” As to count 2, it
found true that appellant used a knife (rule 4.421(a)(2)); engaged in violent conduct,
indicating a serious danger to society (rule 4.421(b)(1)); and had prior convictions of
increasing seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)).
              At the September 16, 2022 sentencing hearing, the trial court stated it had
reviewed and considered a presentencing report filed by the Orange County Probation
Department, as well as defendant’s sentencing brief and the attached investigative report.
The presentencing report recommended appellant be denied probation. As relevant to
this appeal, in his sentencing brief, appellant argued the low term is the presumptive term
because he suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) “when he was under 26 years old and
was subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia.” The brief noted that “[h]is family
reports that he was in a car accident that left him comatose for over a week. Since then,
they reported behavior changes in addition to ultimately being diagnosed with
schizophrenia.” The brief argued that the crime was connected to his mental illness and
disability “as he tends to overreact to situations.” In the attached investigative report,
appellant’s sister stated appellant was in a car accident when he was around 21 years old,
resulting in broken legs and brain injury. Appellant changed after the accident: he
became “childlike,” and often spoke nonsense and without a filter.

                                              3
               After noting that appellant was seeking the low term pursuant to section
1170, subdivision (b), the court asked the district attorney whether she disputed the fact
that appellant suffered a TBI. The district attorney did not dispute that he suffered a TBI,
but argued the evidence was insufficient to show that the TBI contributed to his offenses.
She stated: “I believe that his actions on that date were extremely egregious, very goal-
oriented, very thoughtful and methodical . . . .” In response, defense counsel noted that
because appellant did not waive time for sentencing, counsel was able to obtain only the
interview with appellant’s sister. However, that interview established that appellant’s
behavior changed as a result of his TBI. Appellant also provided a brief statement,
arguing he acted in self-defense because the victim attacked him with a knife first. He
did not mention his TBI or how it may have contributed to his conduct.
              The court sentenced appellant to a total of 11 years. It declined to strike the
prior strike and serious felony enhancements pursuant to section 1385. It imposed the
middle term of three years for count 2, double to six years for the prior strike, plus a
consecutive term of five years for the prior serious felony. It struck the GBI
enhancement as to count 2, and imposed but stayed the sentences for counts 1 and 3.
                                       DISCUSSION
I. Section 1170
              Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 124 amended section 1170 to
provide that “unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the
mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the
interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the lower term if any of the
following was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense: [¶] (A) The person
has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited
to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A).) Appellant
contends the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to show his TBI was a
contributing factor to the commission of the offense because the threshold to “show that

                                              4
trauma affected the commission of the offense is very low.” The parties dispute whether
the court’s sentencing decision should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion or de novo.
We need not decide this issue because even on a de novo review, we conclude appellant
has not shown error.
              Appellant argued that his TBI contributed to the commission of the offense
because the TBI caused his behavior to change and he later was diagnosed with
schizophrenia. The behavioral change was that he became “childlike” and spoke
nonsense or without a filter. No evidence, however, indicated the altercation was the
result of appellant’s uninhibited speech. For example, at the sentencing hearing,
appellant did not provide an explanation on how his TBI, or the mental conditions
resulting from his TBI, contributed to his actions. Accordingly, appellant failed to
demonstrate that his TBI was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense.
II. Abstract of Judgment
              Appellant argues -- and respondent agrees -- that the abstract of judgment
does not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Specifically, the trial
court imposed but stayed the sentences on counts 1 and 3. However, the abstract of
judgment does not reflect the stayed terms. Accordingly, we will remand the matter and
order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26
Cal.4th 181, 185 [“Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts
(including this one) that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered
correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of
sentencing courts”].)

                                              5
                                    DISPOSITION
             The matter is remanded to the trial court for correction of the abstract of
judgment. The corrected abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation. As corrected, the judgment is affirmed.

                                                 DELANEY, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P.J.

SANCHEZ, J.

                                            6