People v. Huynh CA2/1

Opinion

Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Huynh CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B351348

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA111514) v.

ALAN CUONG HUYNH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed. Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________ Appellant Alan Cuong Huynh appeals from his conviction of felony hit and run resulting in death. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting this court to review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have done so and affirm.

BACKGROUND An information filed on August 8, 2024, charged appellant with felony hit and run resulting in death or serious injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (b)(2) and battery with serious bodily injury, in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d). At a hearing on June 3, 2025, the trial court granted a motion to set aside the battery pursuant to Penal Code section 995. A jury trial on the remaining count began on September 11, 2025. The following facts were adduced at trial: On January 28, 2022, Ernestina Arteaga was walking her dog in a crosswalk of an intersection in Monterey Park when she was struck by a white cargo van making a left turn. An eyewitness testified that the van did not stop to render aid and instead continued driving after the collision. Ms. Arteaga later died from the injuries she sustained in the collision. The prosecution presented evidence that law enforcement traced a white Nissan cargo van to Lee’s Noodles, where appellant worked as a delivery driver, and that business records reflected appellant returned to Lee’s Noodles shortly after the collision. The prosecution also presented cellphone-location and Cellebrite extraction evidence placing appellant’s cellular phone 2 near the intersection around the time of the collision. Although the eyewitness identified appellant at the preliminary hearing, she testified at trial that appellant did not look like the driver and reaffirmed that she had selected photograph number three (not appellant) in the photographic lineup. On September 19, 2025, the jury found appellant guilty. On October 29, 2025, the trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to the low term of two years in state prison. The court imposed a restitution fine of $300, stayed a parole revocation restitution fine of $300, imposed a court operations assessment of $40, and a criminal conviction assessment of $30. Appellant was awarded 96 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 48 actual days and 48 conduct credits. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on December 15, 2025.

DISCUSSION Appellant’s appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issue and requested this court review the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellate counsel notified appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief. On June 17, 2026, this court did the same. Appellant did not file a supplemental brief. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that counsel has complied with counsel’s responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110–111; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

M. KIM, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

WEINGART, J.