In re Vo
Filed 6/30/06 In re Vo CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re NHUT THANH VO on Habeas Corpus.
| G035920 (Super. Ct. No. 01WF0137) O P I N I O N |
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of habeas corpus, after judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daniel J. Didier, Judge. Petition denied.
Leslie Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant, Appellant and Petitioner.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Pamela A. Ratner Sobeck and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Petitioner Nhut Thanh Vo was convicted of murder and other crimes for aiding and abetting a gang related shooting at a house party in Westminster. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment, except with respect to some minor aspects of Vo's sentence. (People v. Vo (Apr. 28, 2005, G032646) [nonpub. opn.].) In so doing, we rejected Vo's claim he was prejudiced by pre-charging delay in violation of due process and his right to a speedy trial under the state Constitution. However, as to that issue and others, we granted him leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. Vo pursued that remedy, arguing his attorney was ineffective for failing to make a complete offer of proof in support of his speedy trial motion. Vo also claimed his attorney was derelict for not offering certain evidence and failing to object to other evidence. The trial court denied the petition, and Vo has now filed a habeas petition in this court, raising the very same claims. Finding no basis for relief, we deny the petition.
* * *
In addressing Vo's claims, we are guided by the familiar principles that a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel â€
