legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Wang CA2/6

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Wang CA2/6
By
11:30:2017

Filed 10/4/17 P. v. Wang CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HSIN CHIEH JERRY WANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B282419

(Super. Ct. No. 2016028568)

(Ventura County)

Hsin Chieh Jerry Wang appeals from the judgment entered after pleading guilty to four counts of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a))[1], six counts of money laundering (§ 186.10, subd. (a)), and conspiracy to commit human tracking (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1); 236.1, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years, eight months state prison and ordered appellant to pay various fines and fees.

The probation report reflects that appellant set up a human trafficking network that operated in Kern, Tulare, San Diego, Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The network generated approximately $40,000 to $50,000 a month, over a four year period. Money from the illicit operation was used to purchase real property and vehicles, and to wire money to China.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.

On August 17, 2017, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

TANGEMAN, J.

Bruce A. Young, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.


[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.





Description Hsin Chieh Jerry Wang appeals from the judgment entered after pleading guilty to four counts of pimping (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (a)) , six counts of money laundering (§ 186.10, subd. (a)), and conspiracy to commit human tracking (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1); 236.1, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years, eight months state prison and ordered appellant to pay various fines and fees.
The probation report reflects that appellant set up a human trafficking network that operated in Kern, Tulare, San Diego, Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The network generated approximately $40,000 to $50,000 a month, over a four year period. Money from the illicit operation was used to purchase real property and vehicles, and to wire money to China.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 14 views. Averaging 14 views per day.

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

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale