In re Nguyen
Filed 2/17/06 In re Nguyen CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re SON HOANG NGUYEN, on Habeas Corpus. | H028243 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 194323) |
In prosecuting Son Hoang Nguyen[1] for murder, the People advanced theories that Son had (1) aided and abetted an assault with a firearm of which the murder was a natural and probable consequence, and (2) conspired to commit assault with a firearm of which the murder was a natural and probable consequence. A jury convicted Son of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced Son to 25 years to life in prison. Son appealed and asserted 12 points.[2] We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Nguyen (Sept. 11, 2000) H018913 [nonpub. opn.].) Son filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in superior court challenging the conviction on several grounds. The superior court issued an order to show cause directing the People, as respondent, to file a return, the People filed a return that accepted the relevant facts, Son filed a traverse, and the parties submitted the matter on the papers. The superior court granted the petition on the ground that Son's appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to raise arguments that the trial court had erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on self-defense as that defense related to assault with a firearm, and (2) overruling Son's hearsay objections to testimony pertaining to his motive. The People appeal from the order and essentially argue that the superior court's legal analysis is erroneous. Son essentially counters that the analysis is correct. We agree with the People. We therefore reverse the order.
