People v. Pham CA4/3

Filed 12/15/25 P. v. Pham CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064138

v. (Super. Ct. No. 04WF0034)

HUNG VAN PHAM, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, and Steve Oetting and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After Hung Van Pham pleaded guilty to attempted murder and admitted to firearm and great bodily injury (GBI) enhancements, he was sentenced to 32 years. In 2023, while still in custody, he filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7 raising a claim under the Racial 1 Justice Act (RJA). The trial court denied the motion because a section 1473.7 motion may not be brought by a person in custody. Pham appealed. He argues the court should have construed, sua sponte, his motion as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to section 1473, subdivision (e). We disagree and affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 22 2010, Pham pleaded guilty to attempted murder, a personal firearm use enhancement, and a GBI enhancement. In the plea form, Pham acknowledged the following possible penalties: an upper term of 9 years for the attempted murder, 20 years for the firearm enhancement, and 3 years for the GBI enhancement, totaling 32 years. He further acknowledged he understood the trial court would sentence him to 32 years in prison and that he would waive any custody and work time credit. On November 4, 2010, the court sentenced him to 32 years in prison. On October 10, 2023, Pham filed a motion to vacate his convictions pursuant to section 1473.7, subdivisions (a)(1), (2) of the RJA. He claimed his sentence of 32 years is significantly more time than the sentence of other similarly-situated individuals, citing three unpublished criminal cases wherein the criminal defendant received less time.