People v. Dang CA6

Filed 8/14/25 P. v. Dang CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H052934 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1094291)

v.

THANH TOAN DANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Thanh Toan Dang appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Dang’s appointed counsel asks that we independently review the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Dang has filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf, asserting that his petition should not have been denied at the prima facie stage. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying Dang’s section 1172.6 petition. We have independently reviewed the entire record for unraised issues in accordance with Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, and we see no claims having any arguable merit. We will affirm the order denying Dang’s petition.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Facts of the Offenses2 The facts of the offenses are largely irrelevant to our analysis. Briefly, as stated in this court’s opinion in Dang’s initial appeal from the judgment at trial, the charges in this case arose from a shooting at a restaurant. The victim was shot in the leg and back. The victim identified Dang as the shooter in a photographic lineup and at a preliminary examination. At trial, Dang primarily contested the issue of identity. B. Procedural Background A jury convicted Dang in 2012 of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, 664, subd. (a)) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). The jury found that Dang personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) in committing the attempted murder, and that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the assault with a semiautomatic firearm. The trial court found true allegations that Dang had previously been convicted of a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike (§§ 667.5, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced Dang to an aggregate term of 30 years to life. In the initial appeal from the judgment, this court found no errors that required reversal of Dang’s convictions but we reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for resentencing because the sentence was unauthorized in several respects. (People v. Dang (July 30, 2014, H038871) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court imposed a sentence