People v. Nguyen CA2/3

── People v. Nguyen CA2/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 P. v. Nguyen CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, B351038 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. XNEA564897) v. NINH KIM NGUYEN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody and Larry Pizarro, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗  Ninh K. Nguyen appeals from an order denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Nguyen filed a supplemental brief arguing the trial court erred in denying his petition. We consider Nguyen’s contentions and affirm the trial court order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2010, the People charged Nguyen by amended information with the murder and grand theft of Bui Khuyen in 1983. At trial, the jury was instructed on the general principles of homicide, self-defense, murder with malice aforethought, the degrees of murder, provocation, heat of passion voluntary manslaughter, and imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter. The instruction on the degrees of murder informed the jury: “The defendant is guilty of first degree murder if the People have proved that he acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. The defendant acted willfully if he intended to kill. The defendant acted deliberately if he carefully weighed the considerations for and against his choice and, knowing the consequences, decided to kill. The defendant acted with premeditation if he decided to kill before completing the acts that caused death.” The jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting liability, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or felony murder. In November 2010, the jury found Nguyen guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) for the killing of Khuyen with malice aforethought. The jury found true that Nguyen personally 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 used a knife in the commission of the crime. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The jury also found Nguyen guilty of grand theft (§ 487), and found true that he personally used a knife in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 33 years to life. In April 2025, Nguyen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which, among other things, asserted he was entitled to relief pursuant to Senate Bill Nos. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437) and 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 775). The trial court appointed counsel to represent Nguyen in the section 1172.6 proceedings. The People opposed the petition, arguing Nguyen was not entitled to relief “because he was prosecuted and convicted as the actual stabber and perpetrator of the first-degree murder of [Khuyen] and personally acted with express malice.” The People attached to their opposition this court’s opinion from the direct appeal, the jury verdicts, and the jury instructions. Nguyen’s counsel filed