P. v. Pham
Filed 8/23/06 P. v. Pham CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HOANG VAN PHAM, Defendant and Appellant. | A108335 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C144844) |
Hoang Van Pham appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.)[1] He contends (1) the trial court instructed the jury incorrectly, (2) the court erred when it declined to permit him to conduct post-trial discovery into the mental state of the victim's mother, and (3) the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude no prejudicial errors were committed at appellant's trial and will affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant was convicted of murdering Trang Thu Nguyen, a young woman whom he considered to be his girlfriend.
Nguyen's mother, Mai Huon, moved to the United States from Vietnam in 1996. She lived in an apartment on 26th Street in Oakland. Appellant also lived in the apartment.
In 1997, Nguyen and her sister Trang[2] came from Vietnam and moved in with their mother and appellant. Nguyen turned 23 that year. The apartment proved to be too small and a few weeks later they all moved to a house on 10th Street in Oakland.
Mai, her family, and appellant lived in the house on 10th Street for about three years. In 2001, there was a fire and they were forced to move to a different house on 23rd Street. Appellant stayed at the house briefly and then moved out because he was not satisfied with the new living arrangements.
Neither Mai nor Trang was aware of a dating relationship between appellant and Nguyen. However several months after appellant moved out, they began to notice appellant was loitering outside their home. On one occasion, Trang saw appellant in a nearby parking lot. He said he was waiting for Nguyen. On another occasion, Trang found appellant sitting in the dark at the bottom of the stairs. On yet another occasion, Trang overheard a telephone conversation in which appellant told Nguyen that he did not want her associating with â€
