Filed 7/11/17 P.v. Sok CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KHA SOK,

Defendant and Appellant.
D071339



(Super. Ct. No. SCD264584)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon Jr., and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Kha Sok pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 (counts 1, 3, 5, 7), one count of attempted robbery in violation of sections 664 and 211 (count 2), and two counts of kidnapping in violation of section 209, subdivision (b)(1) (count 6). In addition, Sok admitted using a handgun within the meaning of sections 12022.53, subdivision (b), and 12022.5, subdivision (a), during the commission of counts 2 through 5. The superior court sentenced him to 28 years plus two consecutive life sentences, each with the possibility of parol after a minimum of seven years, with credit for time served.
Sok appealed and his appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Sok's counsel raised only one issue on appeal, whether the sentence the superior court imposed was lawful, and asked this court to independently review the record for error as required by Wende. As we have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal after independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.) We take the facts primarily from the preliminary hearing transcript as Sok stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis for his guilty plea.
Count 1
On November 23, 2015, at about 5:30 p.m., Tracy T. finished shopping at a supermarket and loaded her groceries into the trunk of her car. As she pushed the shopping cart back to the shopping cart return area, Sok suddenly shoved her to the ground and snatched her purse. Sok absconded with Tracy's purse, wallet, credit cards, keys, cell phone, and over $150.00 in cash.
Counts 2 and 3
On November 27, 2015, at about 6:30 p.m., Alfonso Q. was walking with his friend Gloria D. when Sok approached them from behind. Sok pointed a gun at Alfonso's head and demanded money, but Alonso said he did not have any. Sok attempted to put his hand into Alfonso's pocket to look for money but did not find any. He then pushed Alfonso onto the ground, ran towards Gloria, and pointed the gun towards her head. Gloria gave Sok her purse, which contained her passport, clothes, shoes, and other items.
Counts 4 and 5
On November 27, 2015, at about 10:00 p.m., Aki M. left her job and got into her car to drive home. As she was doing so, Sok tapped on the window and flashed a gun at her. Sok then opened the back door of the car, sat down in the seat behind Aki, and ordered her to drive to an ATM. Aki did as Sok instructed, but when they arrived at the ATM, Sok said there were too many people around and instructed Aki to drive to a different ATM. At the second ATM, Sok instructed Aki to withdraw the maximum allotted amount of $600. She then tried to withdraw additional funds with both her debit card and a credit card, but both transactions were declined. Sok instructed Aki to drive to a third ATM, but her card was rejected at that ATM as well.
Sok then told Aki to drive to a liquor store, where he forced her to buy alcohol and cigarettes for him, spending approximately $200. After the liquor store, and approximately 45 minutes after the encounter began, Sok had Aki drop him off near the parking lot where he had gotten into her car. Aki reported the incident to the police and they later recovered the gun Sok had used from the backseat of Aki's vehicle.
Counts 6 and 7
On November 30, 2015, Sok and a male accomplice grabbed Huong N. as she was leaving a convenience store and forced her into the backseat of the vehicle they were driving. One of the men bound Huong's hands and feet and covered her head with her jacket. The men took Huong's wallet, found her debit card, and demanded the PIN. They drove to an ATM and used the debit card to withdraw all of the funds from Huong's account, and also took her necklace, cell phone, iPad and two rings. They made a few more stops before eventually removing her bindings and dropping her off.
Interrogation, Plea, and Sentencing
The police arrested Sok and, on December 2, 2015, a number of detectives investigating the various crimes interrogated him. One of the detectives read Sok his Miranda rights, and Sok confirmed that he understood his rights and agreed to talk to the detectives. The police first asked him about Aki, and he admitted kidnapping her at gunpoint and making her drive around to get him cash and alcohol.
The detectives then asked him about the incident with Huong and, at first, Sok said he was not involved. The detectives encouraged Sok to be honest and forthcoming by telling him a defendant's truthfulness and willingness to cooperate is considered at sentencing, and Sok eventually admitted kidnaping and robbing Huong as well. Thereafter, the detectives continued to encourage Sok to confess his crimes by telling him doing so would set a good example for his children and by indicating the judge may be more lenient in sentencing if he was forthcoming, but also clarified that they did not make any decisions on sentencing and could not actually promise Sok any leniency. As the interrogation continued, Sok also admitted robbing Tracy as well as Alfonso and Gloria.
During the pre-trial proceedings, Sok asked the court to exclude his statements to the police during the December 2, 2015, interrogation and argued the detectives coerced his confession by implying he might receive leniency if he provided them with information regarding the crimes. The People opposed the motion and argued the detectives did not make any offers or promises of leniency and repeatedly clarified that they could not offer any deal in exchange for Sok's confession. The court denied the motion in limine on July 13, 2016 and, later that day, Sok pled guilty to all counts and admitted all allegations as charged.
After reviewing the probation officer's report, Sok's mitigation and sentencing brief, and the People's sentencing brief, and hearing argument from both parties, the superior court sentenced Sok to a total aggregate term of 28 years plus two consecutive terms of life, each with the possibility of parole after a minimum of seven years.
DISCUSSION
Sok's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he is unable to find any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, Sok's counsel has identified the following issues that might arguably support an appeal: "Whether the trial court lawfully sentenced appellant to serve 28 years in state prison plus two consecutive terms of life with the possibility of parole." We offered Sok the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. The issue raised by Sok's counsel is not arguable on its merits. Sok pled guilty to multiple robberies, four of which involved a gun, and two of which involved kidnapping; the superior court addressed all arguments raised by Sok's counsel regarding sentencing and gave a thorough explanation of the sentence for each asserted count and allegation; and the total sentence imposed was lawful under the applicable statutes. (See §§ 209, subd. (b)(1), 211, 654, 664, 1170.1, 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b).) Further, although not raised by Sok's counsel, we have considered the superior court's denial of Sok's motion to exclude his interrogation and have concluded there is no reasonable argument the confession was coerced as the detectives repeatedly informed Sok that they could not offer him any promises of leniency. (See People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 985-986 [confession is coerced only if clearly implied promise of leniency was the proximate cause of the defendant's confession].)
Competent counsel has represented Sok in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:



AARON, J.



IRION, J.