People v. Huynh CA4/3

Filed 12/22/21 P. v. Huynh 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G059708

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20WF0568)

SON THANH HUYNH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed as modified. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Because criminal trials are adversarial in nature, the attorneys have wide latitude in closing argument to point out perceived flaws in opposing counsel’s theories and interpretation of the evidence. The primary question in this case is whether the prosecutor went too far in that regard by using a painting by Georges Seurat and a quotation from President Harry Truman in his critique of the defense case. Contrary to appellant’s claims, we find nothing improper in the prosecutor’s argument here. Nor do we find any reason to disturb the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s Pitchess motion. (See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).) Therefore, other than to correct a clerical error in the minute order of the sentencing hearing, we affirm the judgment. FACTS Appellant Son Thanh Huynh entered a Costa Mesa grocery store on an electric shopping scooter with a backpack in his lap. After filling the pack with wine and liquor, he left the store without paying for the items. Having witnessed the theft, store manager David Rodriguez followed appellant outside and confronted him. When appellant failed to produce a receipt for the alcohol, Rodriguez reached for the backpack, which was still in appellant’s lap. However, appellant bit Rodriguez’s hand, so Rodriguez pulled his hand away, pushed appellant’s head, and stepped back. As he did, the backpack fell to the ground, breaking some of the bottles. At that point, appellant threw himself to the ground and began flopping around like a fish. Then he got up and started to hobble away. But Rodriguez and several of his coworkers corralled him until the police arrived and took him into custody. A search of the backpack revealed 15 bottles of wine and 2 bottles of whiskey. At the scene, the police also found a bag full of toothpaste and other sundry items appellant had stolen from the store. When interviewed by the police, appellant said he took the merchandise because he was hungry.