State v. Nguyen

── State v. Nguyen ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BINH PHUONG NGUYEN, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0261 FILED 04-29-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. S1300CR202401396 The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Jana Zinman Counsel for Appellee Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler By Janelle A. McEachern Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. NGUYEN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined. H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Binh Phuong Nguyen appeals his conviction and sentence for perjury. For the reasons below, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In June 2023, a Yavapai County deputy with a K-9 stopped Nguyen for traffic violations. Nguyen was driving the car with another adult in the passenger seat and two children in the back. After the deputy’s dog alerted to the car, he searched the car and found “a kilogram of cocaine,” “about a thousand pills,” and a firearm. After being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Nguyen told the deputy that the adult passenger (“co-defendant”) knew about the pills. The deputy arrested both Nguyen and his co-defendant. ¶3 In a subsequent interview, Nguyen told police that he and his co-defendant agreed to transport drugs and met a drug dealer in a parking lot to collect the drugs. Nguyen told the officers that, after they received the agreed upon drugs, his co-defendant specifically asked for additional pills. He then explained that the drug dealer did not have pills with him, so they followed him to his house and picked up the additional pills. ¶4 Nguyen pled guilty to attempted sale or transportation of narcotics, a class 3 felony; child abuse, a class 4 felony; misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. After his sentencing and while incarcerated, Nguyen testified under oath at his co-defendant’s trial. Contrary to his earlier statements, he testified that the drug dealer “tossed in” the pills for free and that his co-defendant did not know about the pills. He testified that he lied when he told police that his co-defendant asked for the pills and they went to a house to get them. ¶5 Shortly after his testimony, the State charged Nguyen with perjury, a class 4 felony. At trial, the State introduced the deputy’s body camera footage from the arrest including his conversation with Nguyen, 2  STATE v. NGUYEN Decision of the Court video of Nguyen’s interview with police, and his testimony from his co-defendant’s trial. Further, the officer who arrested and interviewed Nguyen testified that Nguyen told him that his co-defendant knew about the pills. To support its theory that Nguyen knew he was lying under oath, the State also introduced messages between Nguyen and his co-defendant obtained after the traffic stop. The messages discussing getting a “brick,” “2 O,” a “boat,” “stompin[g] on” and selling something unnamed. The officer testified that a brick is “a kilo of illicit drugs,” an O is an ounc