People v. Nguyen CA3

Filed 4/21/25 P. v. Nguyen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101117

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62185611)

v.

TUAN ANH NGUYEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tuan Anh Nguyen pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine and transportation of cocaine. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years with the first four years in custody and the last two years on supervised release. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by imposing the condition that his cellular telephone and other electronic devices were subject to search and seizure, asserting that provision is constitutionally overbroad and unreasonable. He further argues that if he has forfeited this argument due to his trial counsel’s failure to object, his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We will affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND The information charged defendant with transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)—count one),1 possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378—count two), transportation of cocaine (§ 11352, subd. (a)—count three), possession of cocaine for sale (§ 11351—count four), possession of cannabis for sale (§ 11359, subd. (b)—count five), transportation of marijuana (§ 11360, subd. (a)(2)—count six), and possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364, subd. (a)—count seven). At a traffic stop where defendant was stopped for speeding, defendant acknowledged he was traveling too fast and handed the officer his application for a driver’s license. The officer noted defendant’s pupils were constricted and not reacting to light, his teeth were poorly maintained, he was sweating, and his speech was scattered. Defendant told the officer he had last used methamphetamine two to three years prior to that date and had not since. Subsequently, defendant admitted to having “weed” in the trunk and handed the officer a glass pipe with a burnt substance inside, which defendant admitted he used to smoke methamphetamine earlier that day. A search of defendant’s car revealed a small scale in the center console, a cellphone located between the driver’s seat and the console, a laptop in the back seat area, a Ziplock bag containing a pound of methamphetamine, a smaller bag containing 22 grams of cocaine, and three bags containing 2.3 pounds of marijuana. Defendant claimed this was all for his personal use, however officers concluded the total amount of drugs was too large for the daily use defendant claimed. After his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the stop was denied, defendant pled no contest to counts one and three in exchange of a total term of six years