People v. Phung CA4/3
Filed 3/5/25 P. v. Phung CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G063571
v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CF1030)
PHUONG QUOC PHUNG, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed as modified. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Phuong Quoc Phung appeals from the criminal protective order imposed against him pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1) (section 136.2(i)(1)) after a jury found him guilty of assaulting a coworker with a semiautomatic firearm.1 Phung contends the criminal protective order was not authorized because he did not commit a crime specified in section 136.2(i)(1). The Attorney General concedes section 136.2(i)(1) does not apply and the criminal protective order was issued in error.
We agree the trial court erred in issuing the criminal protective order. We therefore strike that order and affirm the judgment as so modified.
FACTS In 2020, Phung and S.S. were both employed as machinists at an engineering company. One day in late April or early May of that year, Phung told S.S. never to speak to him. A week or two later, around 8:00 a.m. on May 8, 2020, S.S. directed Phung where to discard metal shavings. Phung did not say anything and walked away. S.S. was continuing his work when Phung walked up behind him. Phung yelled at S.S. “‘Didn’t I tell you not to talk to me?’” S.S. responded, “‘Yeah, so’” and attempted to return to his work. Phung pulled out a semiautomatic pistol, put it up to S.S.’s head, and “pushed” S.S. with it, causing S.S. to “move back a bit.” S.S. turned and, as he walked away, felt a pain in the back of his head. He also heard a gunshot directly behind his head. S.S. was unsure what had happened but he was then
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)