People v. Saeyang - Criminal Appeal

CA Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 20th, 2026

Detected March 21st, 2026

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, has issued an opinion in the case of People v. Saeyang. The court reviewed the record for arguable issues on appeal and found none, affirming the judgment. The case involved charges related to firearm offenses, with the defendant pleading no contest to possession of an assault weapon.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, has affirmed the judgment in the case of People v. Saeyang (Docket No. C103324). Appointed counsel reviewed the case record and found no arguable issues on appeal. The defendant had previously pleaded no contest to possession of an assault weapon, leading to a suspended sentence, probation, and jail time. The court's decision means the original judgment stands without modification.

This opinion serves as a non-precedential appellate review of a criminal conviction. While it does not establish new legal precedent, it confirms the procedural and substantive outcomes of the lower court's decision regarding firearm offenses. Regulated entities or legal professionals involved in similar cases should note the affirmation of the judgment and the lack of arguable issues identified by the appellate court.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Saeyang CA3

California Court of Appeal

Citations: None known
Docket Number: C103324
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Saeyang 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

(San Joaquin)

THE PEOPLE, C103324

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No.
STKCRFECOD20240009084)
v.

KAOMUANG SAEYANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kaomuang Saeyang asks this court to review the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to him, we will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2024, law enforcement executed a search warrant at a home in Stockon
and found 22 firearms, large amounts of ammunition, and gun parts. Several of the
firearms found were assault weapons. The People charged Saeyang with several firearm
related offenses. Saeyang pled no contest to one count of possession of an assault
weapon. (Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a).)

1
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Saeyang on two years
of formal probation and 364 days in county jail. The court awarded him 20 days of
custody credits.
The trial court imposed the following fines and fees: a $40 court operations
assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment
(Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a
corresponding $300 probation revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of
probation (Pen. Code, § 1202.44).
Saeyang filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable
cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Saeyang was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening
brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from
Saeyang. We have undertaken an examination of the record and conclude there is no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.