People v. Hoang CA3

Filed 5/15/25 P. v. Hoang CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101909

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE008865)

v.

HIEU HOANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Hieu Hoang appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order vacating his hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. His counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Hoang was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief

1

within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and he has not filed a supplemental brief. Although this is not Hoang’s first appeal as of right, in the interest of judicial economy, we exercise our discretion to independently review the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233, fn. 6.) Having done so, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Hoang. The trial court’s postjudgment order vacating Hoang’s Franklin hearing is affirmed. BACKGROUND In 2019, a jury found Hoang guilty of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 and found true that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) as to two individuals. The jury further found true the special circumstance that Hoang committed multiple murders. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The trial court sentenced Hoang to life without the possibility of parole for each murder and 25 years to life for each firearm enhancement, though it stayed one of the enhancements. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (See People v. Hoang (Apr. 29, 2021, C089944) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, Hoang moved for a proceeding under People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261 to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youth offender parole hearing. The trial court initially scheduled a hearing. The People subsequently moved to vacate the hearing, arguing that Hoang was not eligible for a Franklin proceeding based on our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834. The court granted the People’s motion and vacated the hearing. Hoang timely appealed.