1

Filed 3/7/23 P. v. Randhawa CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHER JA R NAIL SINGH RANDHAW A,

Defendant and Appellant. C096424
(Super. Ct. No. MAN

- CR

- FE

2020

- 0005468)

Appointed counsel for defendant Sher Jarnail Singh Randhawa asked this court

to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) .) Based on our review of the record,
we will remand the matter for the trial court to impose the appropriate fines and

assessments

. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the convictions

. I In June 2020, the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s O ffice placed a listing on the Craigslist Modesto W ebsite in the “M issed C onnection s” section. The listin g’s heading
read , “Saw you in town (Lathrop) ” and the body read
, “ Young female looking for the guy2

I saw driving in town. Are you him?” and provided a phone number to a decoy telephone. The next day defendant called the decoy telephone. The officer (hereafter the decoy) did not answer. Instead, the next day, the decoy sent a text message saying , “Hey.” Shortly thereafter, defendant texted the decoy te lephone number a sking if he could
call. When the de coy did not answer, defendant called. Again, the decoy did not answer, but shortly thereafter responded with another text, “I only have texts on Wi

- Fi on my phone.”
The defendant and the decoy engaged in an extended text message exchange over two hours . The conversation started out with defendant asking , “Hey who u see in
Lat h rop? May i know about u who u r ? W hat u need ? ” and “ What u want ? ” After
defendant revealed to the decoy he was a “man of 35, can make you happy,” the de coy texted , “ i wis h my age wo nt bother you

. ” When defendant asked the decoy’s age and
whether the decoy was female, the de coy replied, “young fit female 13 yrs old but dont let that bother you.” At first defendant responded, “Oh no u r too young, ” but then he
said , “It bothers. But i wanna look u.” R eferring to the decoy’s age, the de coy texted
defendant , “that’s just a number not my first time. ” During the text conversation, the two exchanged texts to meet up in Lathrop later that day. When the de coy asked defendant what they were going to do when the y met up , defendant demurred and asked the de coy what the de coy wanted to do. The de coy responded by saying the de coy would orall y copulate defendant and defendant could take
it from there. Defendant texted he would do what the de coy wanted, and wanted to talk
to the de coy and then engage in oral copulat ion and intercourse. Twice during the conversation, defendant texted the de coy , “u no law
enforcement?” The de coy responded to the second question in the negative.3

Ultimately, the two agreed to meet at the skateboard park by the local high school. Defendant shared he would be in a Prius, but he wanted to see her first. The de coy

r esponded by sending defendant a photograph the decoy was using that day ( of another officer in the department )

. Defendant told the de coy his car was white and he was a “Punjabi boy” with a beard and mustache.
When defendant texted that he was at the skate park, officers located defendant in his car. They confirmed that his phone was the one that had been sending the text messages to the decoy telephone. D efendant told the police officers he had answered a Craigslist listing . He said the person he was meeting “said she was 13.” Defendant testified that he saw and responded to the Craigslist listing. He said he
had used Craigslist to find a truck yard and did not know what it meant to have a missed
connection

. He claimed he was in Lathrop the day the l isting was posted and saw two

woman in their 20 ’ s or 30 ’ s , one of whom waved at him. He called the number in the listing to see if that was the person who waved at him

. Defendant claimed he did not believe he was chatting with a 13

- year

- old girl
because i n his home country most women do not tell their exact age. He kept texting the
de coy because he thought the decoy was “playing” and he wanted to take a look

. A jury found defendant guilty o f contacting a minor for a sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, sub d. (a)) 1 and arranging and appearing for a meeting with a minor for purposes of engaging in lewd and lascivious behavior (§ 288.4, subd. (b)).
The trial court placed defendant on probation for five years with 210 days in jail. The probation term was subsequently reduced to two years pursuant to section 1203.1 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2). T he trial court required defendant to register under
section 290 and ordered him to pay a $ 300 fine under section 290 .3 , a $100 fee for

prepar ation of the presentence report , and a n unspecified $40 fee. Although t he clerk’s

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.4

minutes indicate that the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) , a $ 300 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.4 4 ), two $40 court operations assessment s (§ 1465. 8),
and two $30 criminal conviction assessment s (Gov. Code, § 70373) , the trial court did

not orally impose those fines or assessments at sentencing.
II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.
More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Based on our review of the record, we will remand the matter for the trial court

to impose the correct and appropriate fines and assessments. The legal authority for fines and assessments must be specified. In addition, where the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement of sentence varies from the written minute order, it is the oral pronouncement that prevails. ( People v. Zackery (2007)
147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) Further, e ffec tive July 1, 2021, Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess. ) (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 47) repealed former section 1203.1b and abrogated the trial court ’ s authority to impose and collect a fee for the preparation of the probation report. This bill also enacted section 1465.9, which made any balance remaining on the abrogated fees due uncollectible and unenforceable. ( People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 259

- 260.) Accordingly, the trial court must orally impose the correct and appropriate fines and assessments. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.5 DISP OSITION
The convictions are affirmed. The matter is remanded for the trial court to orally impose the appropriate fines and assessments, and to amend and/or correct the relevant
order documents to properly reflect those fines and assessments

.

/S/ MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/S/ M C ADAM, J. *

* Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.