legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Doung CA2/4

NB's Membership Status

Registration Date: Dec 09, 2020
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 12:09:2020 - 10:59:08

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
Xian v. Sengupta CA1/1
McBride v. National Default Servicing Corp. CA1/1
P. v. Franklin CA1/3
Epis v. Bradley CA1/4
In re A.R. CA6

Find all listings submitted by NB
P. v. Doung CA2/4
By
05:03:2022

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAN COOC DOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

B313766

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA230370

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.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPOrts

CURREY, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P.J.

COLLINS, J.





Description 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.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 6 views. Averaging 6 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale