Court Opinion

ID: 9894752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 19:03:54.772017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:33.020738
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/2/23 P. v. Singh 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C097137

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Super. Ct. No. 19FE010982)

         v.

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         This is an appeal after remand for resentencing. Appointed counsel for defendant
Raghvendra Singh has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant
filed a supplemental brief. Having reviewed the record and defendant’s supplemental
arguments, we affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are set forth in our unpublished
opinion in People v. Singh (Dec. 9, 2021, C092034) (nonpub. opn.) and need not be
recounted here. It suffices to say that defendant procured the filing of multiple false or
forged proofs of service in various legal proceedings and also conspired to file two false
or forged grant deeds. (Ibid.)
       A jury found defendant guilty of 14 counts of filing a false or forged instrument, in
violation of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a),1 and two counts of conspiracy to file
a false or forged instrument. The jury also found true an allegation that defendant was
convicted of more than one violation of section 115, subdivision (a), and the cumulative
financial loss from all transactions exceeded $100,000. (People v. Singh, supra.) The
trial court sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison. (Ibid.)
       On appeal from that judgment, this court reversed the cumulative financial loss
finding, remanded the matter for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
(People v. Singh, supra.)
       On remand, defense counsel filed a sentencing memorandum arguing for a grant
of probation because defendant’s culpability for the crimes was reduced due to a mental
condition not amounting to a defense, and because he would likely respond favorably to
treatment that would be required as a condition of probation. Defense counsel also
submitted “attached comments” from defendant, consisting of many pages of handwritten
argument, most of which challenged the validity of defendant’s convictions or
complained about prison conditions.2

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Defense counsel indicated in a footnote that he could not assert these arguments in
good faith for various reasons.

                                             2
       At the resentencing hearing, the trial court observed that this court’s reversal of the
cumulative financial loss finding rendered defendant eligible for probation. (See § 115,
subd. (c)(2).) On that issue, defense counsel submitted the matter on the briefing. The
People opposed probation, arguing defendant’s “schemes went on for several years” and
involved “highly complex legal paperwork involving perjury and fraud.” After hearing
from defendant on a different issue, the court denied defendant’s request for probation,
explaining that defendant continued to deny that his crimes are “really crimes at all,”
continued to “refuse even to this day to accept the law or accept any responsibility to
follow the law,” and continued to show “no remorse for the victims.”
       With respect to the sentence to be imposed, defense counsel summarized an issue
raised in a portion of defendant’s handwritten submission, specifically that section 654
precluded multiple punishment for defendant’s crimes “because it is all one course of
conduct” and he possessed a single intent and objective throughout. The trial court
rejected this argument, heard further argument regarding the appropriate sentence to be
imposed, and allowed defendant to address the court. The court then sentenced defendant
to 12 years in prison. Defendant appeals.
                                       DISCUSSION
       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. (People v. 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. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, the bulk of which raises issues that
are not cognizable in this appeal from resentencing. Specifically, defendant asserts: the
charges against him are not actual crimes; the prosecution of this case against him was
the actual crime; the charges against him violate public policy; if anyone should have
been charged, it was the process server, not defendant; section 115 is unconstitutionally
vague; if the charges are actual crimes, defendant had various defenses and should not

                                              3
have even been held to answer because the prosecutor did not establish the corpus delicti
at the preliminary hearing; defendant’s trial was unfair; witnesses lied under oath; the
jury was erroneously instructed on the law; misconduct at the jail prevented defendant
from producing evidence in his defense; and defendant is the real victim in this case.
Having affirmed defendant’s convictions in the prior appeal and remanded only for
resentencing, defendant “cannot now be permitted to make a direct attack upon his
convictions.” (People v. Webb (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 401, 410.)
       We do briefly address the arguments related to the resentencing. Defendant
argues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation and sentencing him
to prison for 12 years; (2) section 654 precludes multiple punishment because “all the
felonies were consolidated” in the alleged enhancement under section 115, subdivision
(c); and (3) defendant’s sentence amounts to cruel or unusual punishment under the
California Constitution.
       First, there appears no abuse of discretion in denying defendant probation. “The
trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether a defendant is suitable for
probation.” (People v. Lai (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1256.) The relevant criteria
affecting the probation determination are set forth in rule 4.414 of the California Rules of
Court.3 In denying defendant probation in this case, the trial court relied on his lack of
remorse, specifically listed in rule 4.414(b)(7), and his refusal to accept or follow the law,
relevant to whether or not he would be willing or able to comply with the terms of
probation, listed in rule 4.414(b)(3) and (b)(4). “A decision denying probation will be
reversed only on a showing of abuse of discretion.” (Lai, at p. 1257.) Defendant has
made no such showing.

3 Further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

                                              4
       With respect to selecting the term of imprisonment, the trial court also enjoys
broad discretion, although certain requirements have been recently added in order for the
court to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term. (See § 1170, subds. (b)(1) & (2).)
Here, however, the court imposed the middle term of two years for count 17 (conspiracy
to file a false or forged instrument), plus consecutive terms of eight months (one-third the
middle term) for the remaining counts. Defendant has not persuaded this court that
selecting the middle term or imposing consecutive sentences amounted to an abuse of
discretion requiring reversal. His only arguments in that regard are that “the trial court
did not consider post-conviction factors,” that the court “agreed to give concurrent
sentences” and then “changed [its] mind stating that [defendant] caused 90 million dollars
damages,” and that defendant “was never a danger to society; and these were nonviolent
offenses.” Defendant does not tell us which “post-conviction factors” the trial court
failed to consider, or why they purportedly required the court to impose a lower term
sentence or concurrent sentences. However, we presume the court considered all relevant
factors “unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise.” (Rule 4.409.) And to the
extent this can be construed as a challenge to the trial court’s statement of reasons,
because there was no objection on this basis at the resentencing hearing, any such
contention is forfeited. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351.) Moreover,
defendant’s assertion that the trial court agreed to give him concurrent sentences and then
changed its mind is belied by the record. Also belied by the record is the suggestion that
the court erroneously believed defendant caused 90 million dollars in damages. Finally,
while defendant’s crimes were admittedly nonviolent, he cites no authority for the
proposition that this required a lower term or concurrent sentences.
       We next address defendant’s second cognizable argument, his challenge to
multiple punishment under section 654, and observe first that this does not appear to be
the same argument raised below. It is arguably forfeited for that reason. However, this
variation on the assertion also fails. Contrary to defendant’s erroneous assertion, his

                                              5
multiple convictions were not “consolidated” into one offense because of the cumulative
financial harm allegation under section 115, subdivision (c)(2). Indeed, that subdivision
does not apply at all unless a person “is convicted of more than one violation of [section
115] in a single proceeding.” (§ 115, subd. (c)(2).) It does not consolidate those
convictions into one. Moreover, this court reversed that finding in the prior appeal. All
that remains is defendant’s multiple convictions. Whether they may be punished
separately has nothing to do with section 115, subdivision (c)(2). Nor do we find any
fault with the trial court’s rejection of the section 654 argument that was raised below.
       Finally, defendant has also forfeited his challenge to his sentence as cruel or
unusual punishment under the California Constitution. This assertion was not raised at
the resentencing hearing. Nor does it appear in the many pages of handwritten argument
attached to defense counsel’s sentencing memorandum. (See People v. Speight (2014)
227 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) We decline to consider the merits of this challenge for the
first time on appeal.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                       /s/
                                                  Duarte, J.

We concur:

     /s/
Mauro, Acting P. J.

     /s/
Boulware Eurie, J.

                                             6