Filed 7/16/26 P. v. Luu CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H053120, H053522
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. C2013943,
C2104005, C2209590)
v.
QUOC XUONG LUU,
Defendant and Appellant.
Convicted by plea of multiple theft-related counts in several consolidated criminal
actions, appellant Quoc Xuong Luu was sentenced to an agreed-upon term of five years
four months in prison and was separately ordered to pay $42,970.63 in restitution. On
appeal, Luu’s counsel has filed a brief which states the case but raises no issues, asking
this court to conduct an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). We advised Luu of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf
within 30 days, and he has not done so. Finding no arguable issues in our independent
review of the record, except for a clerical error that we will correct, we will affirm the
judgments.
BACKGROUND
In March 2023, Luu agreed to plead no contest to the following charges: in case
number C2209590, possession of a stolen car (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (d); count 11),1
1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
using personal identifying information without authorization (§ 530.5, subd. (a);
count 24), and in case numbers C2013943 and C2104005, one count each of grand theft
(§ 487, subd. (a)).2 Luu also admitted that he had three prior strike convictions. The
parties agreed to an aggregate sentence of five years four months. But they also agreed
that Luu would be released on voluntary home detention and would be required to
comply with the terms of home detention, remain crime-free, and complete a 12-month
drug treatment program. Should Luu successfully complete these terms, it was
understood that the People would request reduction of the wobbler offenses in C2209590
and C2013943 from felonies to misdemeanors and that Luu would have enough credits
that the agreed-upon prison term would be deemed served.
In October 2024, Luu was sentenced. The trial court indicated that because Luu
had not successfully completed his 12-month drug treatment program, “the district
attorney[’s] offer to give credits for an entire year’s worth of programming is now set
aside.” The trial court further noted that reaching the negotiated term would require the
prosecutor to move to reduce certain counts to misdemeanors. The People thereafter
moved to amend the conviction of using personal identifying information without
authorization (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) in case number C2209590 to a misdemeanor. In case
number C2013943, Luu was sentenced to the low term of 32 months in prison and was
given credits for 488 days actual custody and 488 days conduct credit; the sentence was
thus deemed served. In case number C2104005, Luu was sentenced to a consecutive
term of 16 months (one-third the middle term of two years, doubled due to the prior
strikes), with credit for 226 days of actual custody and 226 days of conduct credit. And
in case number C2209590, Luu was sentenced to a consecutive term of 16 months
(one-third the middle term of two years, doubled due to the prior strikes) for possession
2 The global plea agreement encompassed several other criminal cases that are not
the subject of this appeal.
2
of a stolen car and a 364 day county jail sentence for using personal identifying
information without authorization. Luu was awarded zero days of credits for case
number C2209590 due to consecutive sentencing.
The trial court thereafter found Luu had no present ability to pay fines and fees
and “set aside, waived, or deleted” all fines and fees for all three cases. But the abstract
of judgment states for all three cases the following regarding fines and fees: “Fines/Fees
stayed [per] [People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157]. Add’l fee[s] waived.”
This court later granted Luu’s request for relief from default and permitted him to
file a late notice of appeal from the judgment. Luu did not obtain a certificate of probable
cause.
Following a restitution hearing in case number C2209590, the trial court ordered
Luu jointly and severally liable along with his codefendant Huyen Tran for victim
restitution in amount of $42,970.63 to P.K., finding that P.K. had incurred an economic
loss from the fraudulent sale of an Audi sedan. Luu timely appealed from the restitution
order.
DISCUSSION
We assume without deciding that Luu’s right to Wende review of the judgment
includes his separately noticed appeal from the postjudgment order setting restitution in
case number C2209590. (Cf. People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 227 [declining
to extend Wende right of independent review of the record to an appeal from the denial of
postconviction relief under an ameliorative state statutory scheme].) Having
independently reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we find no
arguable issues as to the judgment of conviction entered in case numbers C2013943,
C2104005, and C2209590, or as to the restitution order in case number C2209590. We
will, however, direct the correction of a clerical error in the abstract of judgment in case
numbers C2013943, C2104005, and C2209590, which incorrectly lists the fines and fees
3
imposed in this case as stayed, not waived, contrary to the trial court’s oral
pronouncement. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court
may correct a clerical error in an abstract of judgment at any time].) As modified, we
affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
In case number H053120, the trial court is directed to correct the clerical error in
the abstract of judgment to reflect that fines and fees were waived, not stayed, and to
forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
In case number H053522, the judgment is affirmed.
4
LIE, J.
WE CONCUR:
GROVER, Acting P. J.
WILSON, J.
People v. Luu
H053120, H053522