Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 P. v. Nguyen CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A174029 v. ERIC NGUYEN, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 17NF007265A) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Eric Nguyen’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Nguyen was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not done so.1 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and have independently reviewed the record, and we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND On June 15, 2017, Nguyen was charged in a complaint with felony possession of child pornography in violation of Penal Code2 section 311.11, 1 At Nguyen’s request, we granted an additional 30-day extension for him to file a supplemental brief, until August 28, 2026. We then granted Nguyen’s request for substitution of attorney and another extension of time for filing a supplemental brief, until September 28, 2026. Nothing was filed. 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 subdivision (a). He filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. Nguyen argued the federal government had no reasonable suspicion to search his electronic devices incident to a border search when he arrived at San Francisco International Airport after an international flight. Nguyen’s motion to suppress was heard in connection with the preliminary hearing on November 7, 2017. The prosecutor called two witnesses at the preliminary hearing, Officer Moneeb from United States Customs and Border Patrol, and Special Agent Ryan Vazquez from Department of Homeland Security investigations. Officer Moneeb testified that he was stationed at San Francisco International Airport greeting disembarking passengers from international flights at the port of entry before those passengers have completed the immigration and customs process. Officer Moneeb’s job duties included conducting routine searches of international passengers and their property prior to entry into the United States, entry that occurred after the immigration and customs process. In this capacity he encountered Nguyen on January 19, 2017, and conducted a manual search of his bag and electronic media, including a cursory search of Nguyen’s laptop and USB drive. Officer Moneeb did not use any forensic tools to search Nguyen’s laptop or USB drive. He found, among other things, a folder called “Little Girls WFT” with a video of thumbnails of an unclothed girl “who appeared to have just initiating [sic] puberty participating in masturbation,” and another video with two females “who appeared to have initiated puberty to be engaged . . . in oral sex,” and under “user Eric, My Videos” something entitled “little whores of Europe and it had 15 videos of child erotica.” Moneeb’s initial search of the devices started at 12:54 p.m. and ended at 1:20 p.m. He 2 then alerted Special Agent Taylor from Homeland Security investigations to hand off the electronic media to them.3 Special Agent Ryan Vazquez testified that he worked in child exploitation, money laundering, and narcotics. Nguyen was not randomly stopped and searched. Special Agent Vazquez’s office had received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that identified Nguyen as a person who engaged in sex travel. The tipster specifically reported, “I have heard of a person named Eric Nguyen who travels in different countries to engage in child sex tourism. . . . He has told his friends that he has had sex with children and he has travelled to over 125 countries.” The tipster’s name and phone number were known. Special Agent Vazquez talked to the tipster who stated that Nguyen told her boyfriend that he had sex with underage girls. The magistrate denied the motion to suppress. The magistrate stated that he had read the briefs filed by the parties and understood the defense position, “however, I think that the Cotterman4 case itself makes it clear that the fact that Mr. Nguyen had not re-entered the United States at that point. [¶] And the bottom line is there was enough reasonable suspicion given the information that they had to do the forensic—well, it wasn’t even a forensic search. It was a manual search of his computer, cell phone, and USB drive. It was a relatively short search. [¶] It was only after they found the images then that it went on for further forensic analysis.” 3 The motion only challenged the initial search of Nguyen’s property, not the later forensic download of the devices, which revealed child pornography. 4 United States v. Cotterman (9th Cir. 2013) 709 F.3d 952. 3 Nguyen’s motion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b) was denied, and Nguyen was held to answer for a felony violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a). After an information was filed, alleging a felony violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a), Nguyen filed a motion under section 995 to set aside the information, arguing again that the motion to suppress should have been granted. Nguyen argued that his was not a routine border search where entrants in the country are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant, but rather a non-routine border search, requiring some level of suspicion, of which he claimed there was insufficient evidence. In December 2017, at a hearing on Nguyen’s section 995 motion, the court denied the motion, stating, “having reviewed the record and the pleadings, I believe the search involved here would have been authorized by the Arnold5 case. This initial review of the electronics is a look at files without utilizing any forensic search. It’s authorized—it’s authorized at the border, I believe. And then there was, I think, facts disclosed by that which would have permitted a further search. Accordingly, I’m going to deny the 995.” Thereafter, Nguyen filed numerous motions. He filed four motions to compel, three motions to dismiss, including one for lack of jurisdiction, a Pitchess6 motion seeking Officer Moneeb’s and Special Agent Vazquez’s personnel records, another motion pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), and an additional motion pursuant to section 995. In late 2024, Nguyen’s 5 United States v. Arnold (9th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 941. 6 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. 4 trial counsel declared a doubt as to Nguyen’s competency under section 1368. A few months later, both counsel stipulated to the trial court’s determination that Nguyen was competent based on the court-appointed psychologist’s findings in the evaluation of competency to stand trial report. On June 6, 2025, Nguyen pleaded no contest to count 2 of an orally amended information that added misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of section 311.11, subdivision (a), as count 2, with the understanding that the felony charge would be dismissed, and he would be sentenced to one year probation and 60 days in jail with applicable credits and would be required to register as a sex offender as required by law. The court found Nguyen was fully advised of his rights and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his rights and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The court accepted Nguyen’s no contest plea and found Nguyen guilty of count 2. On August 5, 2025, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Nguyen on supervised probation for one year. Terms of probation included 60 days in the county jail, and that Nguyen register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. On August 14, 2025, Nguyen filed a timely notice of appeal, checking the box that it was “based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” On June 29, 2026, Nguyen’s counsel filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the record on appeal for any arguable issues. Nguyen was sentenced after he entered a plea of no contest and did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Any issues as to the validity of his plea 5 are not before us. (§ 1237.5) The sentence imposed is authorized by law. The motion to suppress, which was the basis for the appeal, was properly denied. We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. _________________________ Sweet, J.* WE CONCUR: _________________________ Richman, Acting P. J. _________________________ Desautels, J. A174029, People v. Nguyen * Judge of the Marin County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 6