People v. Chau CA4/1

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Chau CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081394

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD203402)

MINH CHOUNG CHAU,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed. Minh Choung Chau, in pro. per.; William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Minh Choung Chau appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate his attempted murder conviction and for resentencing under Penal

Code section 1172.6.1 His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief requesting review under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).) After we issued a Delgadillo order notifying Chau of his right to file a supplemental brief, he did so. We conclude Chau has failed to identify any arguably meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2007, Chau was charged by information with premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 189, count 1), along with an allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and various firearms allegations, including an allegation he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d); 12022.5, subd.(a)). Chau was also charged with assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b), count 2), and burglary of an inhabited dwelling (§§ 459, 460, count 3), with allegations attached to each count that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The case proceeded to a jury trial and Chau was the sole defendant. In instructing on the elements of attempted murder, the trial court provided CALCRIM No. 600, which required the People to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) “[t]he defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing another person;” and “(2) [t]he defendant intended to kill that person.” The court also gave CALCRIM No. 601, which required the jury to determine