P. v. Thao
Filed 12/3/13 P. v. Thao 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SOU VANH THAO,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072341
(Super. Ct. No. 11F01998)
This is an
appeal pursuant to
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
About 11:00 p.m. on March 12, 2011, chaos erupted at the Strikes Bowling
Alley. Hundreds of people were screaming
and trying to exit the building.
Officers arrived and ordered everyone to the ground. An investigation revealed that 20-year-old
Antion Taylor was beaten by a group of men that included defendant Sou Vanh
Thao, who was observed by witnesses and on video surveillance tape hitting the
victim twice with a bowling ball. Taylor
suffered many injuries and was transported to the hospital. At trial, defendant admitted that he assaulted
the victim with bowling balls but claimed he did so in self-defense or in
defense of others.
A jury
convicted defendant of assault with a
deadly weapon, to wit, a bowling ball (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1);
count one) and misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242) as a lesser offense
to that charged in count two (battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code,
§ 243, subd. (d)). In connection
with count one, the jury did not sustain the great bodily injury allegation.
For count
one, the court suspended imposition of sentence and granted formal probation
for a period of five years subject to certain terms and conditions, including
210 days in county jail. For count
two, the court imposed 90 days in custody, to be served concurrently with the
time imposed on count one.
Defendant
appeals.
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an
opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the
communication from defendant. Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
BLEASE ,
J.
HULL , J.
