People v. Doung CA2/4
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- David V. Herriford
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Brian S. Currey (author), Nora M. Manella, Audrey B. Collins
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 2/22/22 P. v. Doung CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B313766
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA230370 v.
MAN COOC DOUNG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David V. Herriford, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon and Cheryl Lutz under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In August 2002, defendant and appellant Man Cooc Doung was convicted of second-degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) In May 2003, the trial court sentenced Doung to a term of 15 years to life, and imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). In 2009 and 2010, the trial court denied Doung’s requests to modify the amount of restitution imposed. On June 9, 2021, Doung again filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing the trial court improperly failed to consider that he had no ability to pay the restitution fine. The trial court denied the motion on several grounds, including: Doung failed to object to the fine at trial or in his original appeal; he had not challenged the fine in a timely manner; he had not established he could not pay the fine; and the court had no jurisdiction to modify the fine. Doung timely appealed. Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and requesting that this court follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. The court notified Doung he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Doung did not file a supplemental brief. This court has no independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) We therefore dismiss Doung’s appeal as abandoned. (Ibid.)
2 DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CURREY, J.
We concur:
MANELLA, P.J.
COLLINS, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Serrano No. H036373 · 2012-11-28