Filed 6/30/21 P. v. Nguyen CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G060136 v. (Super. Ct. No. C1642691) LINH THY NGUYEN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, David A. Cena, Judge. Affirmed. Riordan & Horgan and Dennis Riordan; Marc. J. Zilversmit for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon and David M. Baskind, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION In 2018, appellant Linh Thy Nguyen was tried on charges he committed multiple child sex crimes against his wife’s cousins between 1997 and 2005. Due to the lengthy delay between the commission of appellant’s alleged crimes and the commencement of his trial, the victims’ testimony was “generic” in the sense they were unable to recall the specific dates and some of the particular occasions on which the charged acts occurred. (See People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 299 (Jones).) Despite this – and despite appellant’s steadfast denial of any wrongdoing – the jury convicted him on all of the charges. Appellant contends reversal is required because 1) the precharging delay and lack of specificity in the charges violated his due process rights, 2) there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict in multiple respects, 3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during questioning and closing argument, 4) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of uncharged misconduct, 5) his attorney was ineffective for failing to present certain exculpatory evidence, and 6) the cumulative effect of these errors and deficiencies rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. Finding these contentions unmeritorious, we affirm the judgment. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1985, appellant and his family immigrated to the United States from Vietnam and took up residence in San Jose. Eight years later, at the age of twenty-four, appellant started dating sixteen-year-old Tran D. Although Tran and appellant were never legally married, they did go through a Vietnamese marriage ceremony in 1998 and have a daughter together the following year. It was around this time that appellant started molesting Tran’s cousins Thanh, Thuy, Phoung and Phi. Thanh and Thuy are sisters. In 1994, when Thanh was three years old, she and her parents immigrated from Vietnam to San Jose, where Thuy was born two years later. Phoung and Phi are also sisters, and like Thanh, they too were born in Vietnam. 2 They were 14 and 7 years old, respectively, when they immigrated to San Jose with their parents in 1998. When Thanh’s family first arrived in San Jose, they …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals