Court Opinion

ID: 9377356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 18:02:38.605107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.899516
License: Public Domain

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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                  C096424

           v.                                                                   (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE-
                                                                                       2020-0005468)
 SHER JARNAIL SINGH RANDHAWA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         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 Office placed a listing on the
Craigslist Modesto Website in the “Missed Connections” section. The listing’s heading
read, “Saw you in town (Lathrop)” and the body read, “Young female looking for the guy

                                                             1
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 telephone number asking if he could
call. When the decoy 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
Lathrop? May i know about u who u r? What u need?” and “What u want?” After
defendant revealed to the decoy he was a “man of 35, can make you happy,” the decoy
texted, “i wish my age wont bother you.” When defendant asked the decoy’s age and
whether the decoy was female, the decoy 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.” Referring to the decoy’s age, the decoy 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 decoy asked defendant what they were going to do when they met up,
defendant demurred and asked the decoy what the decoy wanted to do. The decoy
responded by saying the decoy would orally copulate defendant and defendant could take
it from there. Defendant texted he would do what the decoy wanted, and wanted to talk
to the decoy and then engage in oral copulation and intercourse.
       Twice during the conversation, defendant texted the decoy, “u no law
enforcement?” The decoy responded to the second question in the negative.

                                             2
       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 decoy
responded by sending defendant a photograph the decoy was using that day (of another
officer in the department). Defendant told the decoy 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. Defendant 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 listing 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 in his home country most women do not tell their exact age. He kept texting the
decoy because he thought the decoy was “playing” and he wanted to take a look.
       A jury found defendant guilty of contacting a minor for a sexual offense
(Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (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). The 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
preparation of the presentence report, and an unspecified $40 fee. Although the clerk’s

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             3
minutes indicate that the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300
probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), two $40 court operations assessments (§ 1465.8),
and two $30 criminal conviction assessments (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, effective 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.

                                              4
                                       DISPOSITION
       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/
MCADAM, J.*

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

                                              5