People v. Huynh CA6

Filed 3/5/25 P. v. Huynh CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H052275 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC089248)

v.

JOHN NGOC HUYNH,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.)

Defendant John Ngoc Huynh was convicted by jury of three counts of home invasion robbery in concert (Pen. Code, § 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)); unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code) and three counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237) in 2002. The jury also found true special allegations that defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and found true various firearm special allegations including that defendant personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). In 2017, defendant was resentenced to 15 years to life in prison (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(B)), consecutive to a 20-year firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). All other sentencing enhancements were stayed.

Representing himself, defendant filed a “Motion for Relief Due to Discrimination” under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Racial Justice Act) (§ 745)1 in 2023. The motion states in part: “Current gang enhancement statutes criminalize entire neighborhoods historically impacted by poverty, racial inequality, and mass incarceration as they punish people based on their cultural identity, who they know, and where they live. Of course this is wrong. The gang enhancement statute is applied inconsistently against people of color, creating a racial disparity. The current statute also disproportionately impacts communities of color, making the statute one of the largest disparate racial impact statutes that imposes criminal punishments.” Defendant attached an abstract of judgment to his motion. He asked the trial court to take judicial notice of documents in the appellate record and the court file, requested discovery of various other documents, and requested that the “gang enhancement” be stricken. The trial court denied the motion, noting that it was premature because the Racial Justice Act did not yet apply to noncapital cases and that an appeal relating to defendant’s sentence was pending at that time in this court. (That appeal was later dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order.) Still self-represented, defendant filed another motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act in 2024. (The motion also raised defendant’s “Youth Offender Status pursuant to PC § 1170(d)(1) and or (d)(2).”) Defendant again attached an abstract of judgment, as well as additional documents including the order denying his 2023 motion; the docket for his dismissed appeal; an article about gang enhancements; the text of section 745; and the text of two bills amending other provisions of the Penal Code. He asked that counsel be appointed and that he be resentenced. The trial court noted that the