Filed 6/24/26 P. v. Saephanh 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Shasta)
THE PEOPLE, C103164
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 24F4178)
v.
LO HINH SAEPHANH,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Lo Hinh Saephanh filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of this case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2024, police responded to a “suspicious circumstance” call at a
residence in Redding. When they arrived, they saw defendant holding two large kitchen
knives, one in each hand. Defendant made “violent statements” to the police, including
“you are going to have to fucking kill me.” At one point, defendant pointed the knives
directly at the responding officers. He initially ignored commands to drop the knives but
1
eventually complied. As defendant was transported, he kicked his feet backwards,
striking an officer in the leg several times.
The People charged defendant with resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code,
§ 69)1 and exhibiting a deadly weapon to a police officer to resist arrest (§ 417.8). The
People alleged several aggravating circumstances and two prior strike convictions,
including one for rape of a spouse by force (former § 262, subd. (a)(1)).
Defendant petitioned for pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to section
1001.36. The trial court denied the petition, finding that defendant was not suitable for
diversion because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The court
explained that the present offenses stemmed from a violent event that could have resulted
in injury, noting that defendant told the responding officers that they would have to kill
him. The court also cited defendant’s prior conviction for rape by force.
Defendant ultimately pled no contest to the charged offenses and admitted one of
the prior strike convictions. The court sentenced defendant to six years (the middle term,
doubled due to the prior strike) for exhibiting a deadly weapon to a police officer and one
year four months (one-third of the middle term, doubled) for resisting an executive
officer.
Defendant timely appealed, initially without requesting a certificate of probable
cause. Defendant subsequently sought permission in this court to request a belated
certificate of probable cause in the trial court. We granted the application for permission,
and the trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant
was advised by counsel of his 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.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3