People v. Nguyen

• Decision Date: 01 September 2022
• Docket Number: H047893
• Citation: 82 Cal.App.5th 888,298 Cal.Rptr.3d 877
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Quoc Ai NGUYEN, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

82 Cal.App.5th 888
298 Cal.Rptr.3d 877

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Quoc Ai NGUYEN, Defendant and Appellant.

H047893

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

Filed September 1, 2022

Attorney for Defendant and Appellant Quoc Ai Nguyen: Matthew J. Watts, under appointment by the Court, of Appeal for Appellant

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent The People: Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorney General

LIE, J.

82 Cal.App.5th 892

298 Cal.Rptr.3d 879

Under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (Detainer Agreement, Pen. Code, § 1389 ),¹ a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in one participating state and subject to a detainer for charges pending in another participating state may demand final disposition of those pending charges within 180 days of receipt of the demand. Quoc Ai Nguyen's appeal calls for us to determine, as a threshold matter, whether another state's unreasonable delay in notifying him of his California detainer and right to demand final disposition of the underlying charges would entitle him to dismissal of his pending charges. ( § 1389, art. III, subd. (a).) Because interpretation of the congressionally sanctioned agreement is a matter of federal law, we follow a series of federal decisions holding that dismissal is not a remedy for breach of this duty of prompt notice. We therefore conclude that the hearing Nguyen requests as to the reasonableness of this delay would serve no purpose under the Detainer Agreement, and we affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

In December 2016, the Santa Clara County District Attorney (District Attorney) filed a complaint (C1652927) charging Nguyen with possession for sale and transportation of a controlled substance.

Six months later, the District Attorney filed a complaint in a second case (C1766436) charging Nguyen with additional controlled substance offenses.

In July 2017, Nguyen was arrested in La Plata County, Colorado for selling marijuana. The following year, he was convicted and sentenced to six years in Colorado state prison.

On July 18, 2018, while incarcerated in Colorado, Nguyen sent an informal request to the warden for a final disposition of his pending charges in Santa

82 Cal.App.5th 893

Clara County.² Two days later, Nguyen forwarded his informal request to the District Attorney. Consequently, on August 28, 2018, the District Attorney lodged a detainer with the Colorado warden, citing his pending felony charges. The Colorado warden acknowledged receipt of the detainer the next day, August 29, 2018.

It was not until December 5, 2018, a delay of 14 weeks, that the Colorado warden served Nguyen with the detainer and notice of his right to demand final disposition of the charges. That same day, Nguyen formally requested final disposition of the charges; the District Attorney received Nguyen's request from the Colorado warden on December 21, 2018.

On March 4, 2019, Nguyen was transported to Santa Clara County and was arraigned the next day in his pending felony cases. Nguyen moved to dismiss these and three pending misdemeanor matters under the Detainer Agreement, citing the lapse of more than 180 days from receipt

298 Cal.Rptr.3d 880

by the Santa Clara County Superior Court and District Attorney of his informal, predetainer request for final disposition of his charges.

On May 31, 2019, a magistrate granted Nguyen's motion to dismiss, finding that "the clock [under section 1389, article III of the Detainer Agreement] began in July of 2017," when the District Attorney began extradition proceedings.³

In the superior court, the District Attorney filed a motion to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaints pursuant to section 871.5. The superior court granted the motion and ordered the reinstatement of the previously dismissed complaints. Because the District Attorney had in the meantime obtained an indictment on all pending felony charges under a new case number, C1910627, the court later dismissed the felony complaints in light of the indictment.⁴

82 Cal.App.5th 894

Nguyen thereafter pleaded guilty to a subset of the charges in return for a negotiated sentence and dismissal of the remaining counts. The trial court sentenced Nguyen to the stipulated term of two years in prison,⁵ concurrent to his six-year Colorado term. Nguyen timely appealed and was granted a certificate of probable cause.

II. DISCUSSION

Nguyen argues that the superior court erred by ordering the reinstatement of the dismissed complaints under section 871.5 without conducting a hearing to determine whether the Colorado warden unreasonably delayed notifying him of the detainer and his right under article III of the Detainer Agreement to request final disposition of his pending California charges.

A. Standard of Review

Upon a magistrate's dismissal of an action under the Detainer Agreement, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court to compel the magistrate to reinstate the dismissed complaint. ( § 871.5, subd. (a).) "The only ground for the motion shall be that, as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof." ( § 871.5, subd. (b).) On appeal, we directly examine the magistrate's ruling to determine if the dismissal was erroneous as a matter of law. ( People v. Shrier (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 400, 409-410, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 233 ( Shrier ).) Although we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the magistrate's factual findings, if any, we review the magistrate's legal conclusions de novo. (

298 Cal.Rptr.3d 881

Id. at p. 410, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 233.)⁶

B. Legal Principles Governing the Detainer Agreement

The Detainer Agreement, codified in California at section 1389, " ‘facilitates the resolution of detainers, based on untried indictments, informations or complaints in one jurisdiction, lodged against persons who have "entered upon a term of imprisonment" in another jurisdiction.’ " ( People v. Lavin (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 609, 612, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 40.) An alternative

82 Cal.App.5th 895

to extradition⁷ for the signatories—48 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia—the Detainer Agreement "is intended to ‘encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition’ of any outstanding criminal charges." ( Netzley v. Superior Court (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 348, 357, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 ( Netzley ); § 1389, art. I.) "[T]he Detainer Agreement is a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact, the interpretation of which presents a question of federal law." ( Cuyler, supra , 449 U.S. at p. 442, 101 S.Ct. 703.)

The Detainer Agreement defines the responsibilities of (1) the "sending state" in which a person is presently serving a sentence of imprisonment and (2) the "receiving state," in which that person still has pending charges that are subject to a "detainer." "Detainer" is a term of art, " a formal notification, lodged with the authority under which a prisoner is confined, advising that the prisoner is wanted for prosecution in another jurisdiction." ( United States v. Kenaan (1st Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 912, 915 [distinguishing pre-Detainer Agreement practice of mere "request that the prisoner not be released until he could be taken into custody by the requesting state].)⁸

Under article III of the Detainer Agreement, a...