Court Opinion

ID: 9899559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:04:40.546031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:37.489625
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/16/23 P. v. Sandher CA1/3
                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

 THE PEOPLE,
          Plaintiff and Respondent,                             A166128
 v.
 JOGA SINGH SANDHER,                                            (Contra Costa County
          Defendant and Appellant.                              Super. Ct. No. 000394-7)

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Joga Singh Sandher appeals the denial of a recommendation by the
Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Secretary) to
recall his sentence under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1).1
We affirm.
        In 2000, Sandher attended a service at the Sikh Center of the San
Francisco Bay Area. He asked the center’s president, Ajmer Singh Mahli, for
a chance to speak to the congregation, but Mahli said no. Believing he’d been
instructed by the “Tenth Guru” to punish Mahli for lying, Sandher retrieved
a semiautomatic rifle and ammunition from the trunk of his car and returned

        1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,

§ 8.1) and recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issue before us.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Section 1170,
subdivision (d)(1) has been modified and renumbered as section 1172.1.
(People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 817–818.) For clarity, we cite to
the current provision.
                                                        1
to the center. Kneeling worshippers scattered when he fired a round and
exclaimed, “I will kill you all.” He chased after Mahli and shot him in the
head, killing him. Sandher then fired into the crowd, striking a worshipper
in the leg. Ultimately, worshippers subdued Sandher until police arrived.
A jury convicted Sandher of first degree murder and assault with a firearm,
and it found true an allegation that he discharged a firearm in committing
the murder. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life each for the
murder and the firearm enhancement — a total of 50 years to life.
      In March 2020, the Secretary sent a letter to the trial court
recommending it recall and resentence Sandher under section 1172.1. In
opposition, the district attorney argued the court should not dismiss the
firearm enhancement because Sandher posed an “ ‘unreasonable risk of
danger to public safety’ ” under section 1170.18, subdivision (c). Sandher
supported the Secretary’s recommendation and asked the court to dismiss,
strike, or make the enhancement concurrent.
      At the June 2022 hearing on the Secretary’s recommendation, Dr. Teo
Ernst, an expert in forensic psychology, testified for the defense. Ernst
opined Sandher had bipolar disorder with psychotic features at the time of
the murder, meaning that he experienced manic symptoms nearly every day
for at least one week. Symptoms could include hallucinations and delusions.
Ernst opined the death of Sandher’s father in 1999 triggered the symptoms.
Ernst noted Sandher was experiencing delusions at the time of the murder,
claiming the “Tenth Guru” was “speaking to him and instructing him to grab
his gun and punish Mr. Mahli,” yelling “ ‘This is for the Guru’ ” during the
shooting. Ernst also testified Sandher demonstrated a manic episode in
prison between 2005 and 2006.

                                       2
      On cross-examination, Ernst agreed Sandher could have recurring
manic episodes if his bipolar illness were left untreated. He also
acknowledged Sandher assaulted a guard during the manic episode in prison,
but he noted Sandher thereafter resumed taking medication and “the vast
majority of his manic symptoms reduced.” Ernst conceded, however, that
Sandher’s delusion about the “Tenth Guru” telling him to kill Mahli persisted
into 2012, “six years after achieving psychiatric stability on psychiatric
medications.” Ernst found the delusion’s persistence “unexpected” because
“delusions resulting from mania often resolve once an individual is
psychiatrically stabilized.” And Ernst admitted, if Sandher were to stop
taking his medication again, it “would certainly increase the risk that he
would become manic, psychotic, and engage in violence.”
      In August 2022, the trial court announced its decision. It concluded
Sandher was an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in
[section] 1170.18(c)” and denied the recommendation to recall and resentence
him. The court noted Sandher would need to continue treatment throughout
his life, and symptoms would recur if he discontinued medication. If he did,
there would be a “high risk” of “physical violence toward other people” —
with Sandher’s assault of the prison guard as an example. The court also
noted testimony that it would be “possible for someone to develop delusions
about not needing to continue to take medication.” Relatedly, the court noted
Sandher’s core delusion — that the “Tenth Guru” ordered him to shoot
Mahli — persisted for six years after he had achieved stability on psychiatric
medications. Ernst could not explain why the delusion endured despite the
stabilization of other symptoms. And, the court concluded, the “absence of
explaining why this . . . murderous heart of this delusion persisted for six

                                       3
years . . . is what makes the defendant an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety.”
      On appeal, Sandher contends the trial court erred in finding him an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. We review the court’s decision
for abuse of discretion (People v. Jefferson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 235, 242–243)
and find none.
      When the Secretary recommends recall and resentencing, there “shall
be a presumption” in favor of doing so unless the trial court “finds the
defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in
subdivision (c) of Section 1170.18.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (b)(2).) Section 1170.18,
subdivision (c) defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as “an
unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony”
within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv). Those offenses —
known as super strikes — include, among others, any homicide and any
serious or violent felony offense punishable in California by life imprisonment
or death. (Ibid.; People v. Braggs, supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 818.)
      At the hearing, there was evidence of Sandher’s mental illness, his
assault of a prison guard after he stopped taking his medication, the risk of
further violence if he did so again, and the inexplicable persistence of his
delusion — that the “Tenth Guru” ordered him to kill Mahli — for years after
he had supposedly achieved stability on psychiatric medication. Given this
record, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in finding
Sandher was an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (People v.
McCallum (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 202, 211.)
      Sandher contends he cannot pose an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety because — given his 25-year-to-life sentence for murder — a
recall of his sentence on the firearm enhancement would not have resulted in

                                        4
his release, a meaningful reduction of his sentence, or the advancement of his
parole eligibility date. Moreover, he characterizes the trial court as “finding
that recalling [his] sentence would likely result in [him] committing a super
strike offense in the community.” His first argument is irrelevant as none of
the statutory provisions at issue ask the court to consider a defendant’s
release into the community as part of its analysis. (See People v. Braggs,
supra, 85 Cal.5th at p. 818.) His second point is incorrect. In finding
Sandher an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court said
nothing about him being released to the community; indeed, the court
explicitly observed the issue of Sandher’s “release to the public” was not at
issue in the hearing. Moreover, in arguing a dangerousness finding must be
predicated upon evidence a defendant is likely to commit a super strike
offense if released into the community, Sandher relies on People v. Moine
(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 451. Moine concerns mental health diversion
under section 1001.36 and is inapposite. Sandher’s reliance on People v.
Bush (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 992 and People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th
1255 — both of which concerned Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and
Schools Act — is similarly unavailing.
                                DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                         5
                                _________________________
                                Rodríguez, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Tucher, P. J.

_________________________
Petrou, J.

A166128
People v. Sandher

                            6