People v. Nguyen CA6

Filed 5/9/22 P. v. Nguyen CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H047323 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1899682)

v.

HAU TRUNG NGUYEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found appellant Hau Trung Nguyen guilty of the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle. Nguyen’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to instruct the jury that to convict him of that crime it must find the vehicle’s value exceeded $950. The Attorney General concedes that instructional error, identifies another, and contends both were harmless. For the reasons explained below, we agree and affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background On December 13, 2018, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed an information charging Nguyen with the taking or unauthorized use of a vehicle, a 2005 Lexus, with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of its possession (Veh. Code,

§ 10851, subd. (a)1; count 1) and buying or receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count 2). As to both charges, the information alleged Nguyen had a prior felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 666.5). On February 11, 2019, the jury found Nguyen guilty on count 1. At a court trial the same day, the court found true the prior felony conviction allegation attached to count 1. As count 2 was charged in the alternative, the jury did not render a verdict on it, and the trial court dismissed it. On May 24, 2019, the trial court sentenced Nguyen to three years in prison. Nguyen timely appealed. B. Evidence Presented at Trial On July 23, 2018, around 4:00 p.m., the victim parked her car, which she described as a “2005 Lexus GX 300,”2 in front of a liquor store. She left her keys in the ignition and went into the store. When she returned, she saw her car being driven away (but could not see who was driving it) and called the police. The victim had not given anyone permission to drive her vehicle that day. The stolen car contained personal items, including her cell phone, wallet, keys, and laptop. Later that night, she used her e-mail account to track her stolen phone and located it in the area of the Valley Fair shopping center. She called the police. When the police arrived at that location, they found Nguyen sitting in the driver’s seat of the parked Lexus. Most of the victim’s personal valuables were still inside the vehicle. At trial in February 2019, the victim testified that she had purchased the vehicle in March 2018, approximately three months before it was stolen. She had “put [$]3,000 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. 2 There is uncertainty in the record about the precise model of the stolen Lexus. The information alleged the vehicle was a “2005 Lexus LX450.” The arresting officer testified that the vehicle was a SUV and a 2005 Lexus LX 450. The victim testified that her vehicle was a “2005 Lexus GX 300.” In her 911 call, which was played to the jury and admitted into evidence, the victim stated that the vehicle was a “SUV” and a “2005 Lexus LX 460.” 2