Court Opinion

ID: 9953745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 19:02:47.623144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:48.374761
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/22/24 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C099220

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

           v.

 RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Raghvendra Singh was released on postrelease community supervision
after serving a portion of a 12-year sentence, which was first imposed in 2020 and then
reimposed on resentencing in 2022. The trial court denied a motion to terminate
postrelease community supervision, and defendant appeals from that denial. His
appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to
independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Having done so, we affirm.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       In our opinion resolving defendant’s appeal from his most recent resentencing, we
summarized the facts of the case: “[D]efendant 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. [Citation.]
       “A jury found defendant guilty of 14 counts of filing a false or forged instrument,
in violation of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a), 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. [Citation.] The trial
court sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison. [Citation.]
       “On appeal from that judgment, this court reversed the cumulative financial loss
finding, remanded the matter for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
[Citation.]” (People v. Singh (Nov. 2, 2023, C097137) [nonpub. opn.].) At the
resentencing hearing, defendant requested probation and noted he was scheduled to be
released in October 2022. The trial court rejected defendant’s request and imposed a
sentence of 12 years. Defendant appealed the resentencing decision, and this court
affirmed the judgment. (Ibid.)
       On July 25, 2023, defendant filed an ex parte motion to terminate postrelease
community supervision, attaching the abstract of judgment from the resentencing hearing
and saying it did not show any postrelease community supervision. The trial court denied
the request.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                      DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436, requesting this court to review the record and determine whether there are any

                                             2
arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief and he has not
done so.
       In Wende, our Supreme Court held that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review
of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which
raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221.) The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right
and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution.” (Delgadillo, at p. 221.)
       In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court considered whether the Wende process applies
to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under Penal Code
section 1172.6 and concluded such procedures are not required. (People v. Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) While Delgadillo addressed the application of
Wende’s review procedures in the specific context of a postconviction relief order under
Penal Code section 1172.6, it explicitly declined to apply its holding to other
postconviction motions. (Delgadillo, at p. 231, fn. 5 [“[i]n this case, we are not deciding
Wende’s application to other postconviction contexts, which may present different
considerations”].) As such, we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review
of defendant’s case for any arguable issues.
       After independently reviewing the record, we find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                               3
                                      DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                 MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
EARL, P. J.

 /s/
ROBIE, J.

                                             4