People v. Nguyen CA1/2

Filed 4/8/25 P. v. Nguyen CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171181 v. TRI DUNG NGUYEN, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 144700) Defendant and Appellant.

Tri Dung Nguyen appeals from a postconviction order declining to vacate a restitution fine and court-ordered payment to the California Victim Compensation Board imposed at sentencing on his 2004 murder conviction. His appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Nguyen filed a supplemental brief. After reviewing Nguyen’s arguments and the record provided on appeal, we affirm. BACKGROUND In July 2004, a jury found Nguyen guilty of first degree murder involving the personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and in August 2004, the court sentenced Nguyen to a total term of 26 years to life in state prison. The court imposed a “Restitution

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Fine” of $7,500 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and ordered Nguyen to pay $7,500 to the Victim Compensation Board pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f).2 In 2006, Division Two affirmed Nguyen’s conviction in a direct appeal where his “sole claim of error concern[ed] alleged error in the admission of certain evidence.” (People v. Nguyen (Mar. 6, 2006, A107996) [nonpub. opn.].) On August 18, 2023, Nguyen filed a “motion to vacate judgment of court-imposed costs (fines and restitution)” in the trial court, arguing the 2004 restitution fine and payment to the Victim Compensation Board are “now unenforceable and uncollectible” pursuant to section 1465.9. (Capitalization omitted.) In support of the motion, Nguyen submitted a copy of a July 2023 cashier’s check for $5,772.91, payable to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for “Restitution Payment” and an “Inmate Statement Report” from July 2023, reflecting a “Current Balance” of $7,500 for the restitution fine and $5,772.91 for the restitution “Direct Order.” In March 2024, Nguyen sent a letter to the court inquiring about the status of his August 18 motion. On May 31, 2024, the court issued an order acknowledging Nguyen’s March letter and dismissing Nguyen’s motion to vacate. The court reasoned it lacked jurisdiction post judgment, and, even if it had jurisdiction, “the court would deny the motion because none of the financial obligations imposed at sentencing [are] considered ‘court-imposed costs’ within the meaning of section 1465.9.”