Court Opinion

ID: 9899963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 00:03:37.040878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:57.296515
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/17/23 P. v. Singh CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085731
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. F18901689)
                    v.

    JASVIR SINGH,                                                                         OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G.
Idiart, Judge.
         Deanna L. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
        Appointed counsel for defendant Jasvir Singh filed an opening brief that sets forth
the facts of the case and asks 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).)
After independently examining the record, we affirm.
                                     BACKGROUND
        In February 2022, Singh was charged in count 1 of driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI) causing injury while having a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more (Veh.
Code, § 23153, subd. (b)); in count 2 of DUI causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd.
(a)); and in count 3 of leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)).
As to counts 1 and 2, it was further alleged that Singh drove with a blood-alcohol
concentration of .15 or more (Veh. Code, § 23578); that he suffered a prior DUI
conviction within 10 years (Veh. Code, § 23560); and that, in the commission of the
current offense, he personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd.
(a)).
        The case was assigned for jury trial on September 29, 2022. The following day,
the trial court heard evidence on Singh’s motion in limine to exclude his post arrest
statements under Miranda.1 The matter was continued to the following week for party
argument and a court ruling. On October 5, 2022, prior to a ruling on the Miranda
motion, Singh agreed to plead no contest to all charges and admit all enhancements for a
court indicated “lid” sentence of four years, four months.
        Singh’s plea was entered under People v. West2 and the parties stipulated to the
preliminary hearing as providing the factual basis for the plea.
        At sentencing on January 25, 2023, the trial court denied probation and sentenced
Singh to four years, four months as follows: on count 1, the lower term of 16 months with

1       Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).
2       People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.

                                              2.
a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury enhancement; on count 2, the lower
term of 16 months with a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury
enhancement, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654; and on count 3, the middle term
of two years, to run concurrent. Singh was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $600 with
the same amount stayed pending successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4,
subdivision (b), 1202.45). He was also ordered to pay $3,514.73 to the California
Victims Compensation Board (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)).
       On February 1, 2023, the trial court held a contested restitution hearing wherein
the victim was represented by retained counsel. Following a lengthy recitation by the
trial court of expenses claimed, Singh was ordered to pay victim restitution in the amount
of $284,079.84, including attorney fees.3 Singh filed a timely notice of appeal.
                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS4
       California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Jason Protzman responded to a call on
February 22, 2018, of an injury collision at the intersection of Del Rey and North in
Fresno County. Upon arrival, Officer Protzman observed two disabled vehicles with
major collision damage. He was informed that an involved male was running from the
scene. The male, later identified as Singh, was pursued on foot and returned to the scene
of the accident.
       Officer Protzman spoke with Singh, who said he was traveling southbound on Del
Rey, stopped at a posted stop sign, and proceeded through the intersection when the
collision occurred. Singh told Officer Protzman that, after the collision, an unknown

3      The trial court “reserved” the request for “wages and lost wages, both present and
future,” totaling $1,031,739.63. It also denied some attorney fees, consultations, and
independent medical exams, stating all were “more prep” for a civil judgment.
4      The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing and stipulated to as providing the
factual basis for the plea.

                                            3.
person assaulted him, causing him to flee the scene. Officer Protzman conducted a
sobriety test on Singh, opined Singh was DUI, and placed him under arrest.
       Later that day, Officer Protzman interviewed the other driver, Jessica R., who was
in an area hospital and had noticeable severe injuries. Jessica R. reported driving
eastbound on North Avenue when she felt a massive impact.
       CHP Officer Brent Donley also responded to the accident scene and spoke to two
witnesses, Jesus U. and Constancio F. Jesus U. told Officer Donley that he observed a
white Chevrolet Tahoe traveling southbound on Del Rey fail to stop at the stop sign. The
Tahoe collided with a Honda Civic travelling on North Avenue. Jesus U. believed the
Tahoe was traveling approximately 50 miles per hour. Jesus U. observed Singh seated in
the driver’s seat of the Tahoe immediately after the collision and then saw him standing
next to the Tahoe when Officer Donley arrived on the scene. Officer Donley observed
the vehicle damage to be consistent with the collision as described by Jesus U.
       Constancio F. gave a similar description of the collision circumstances, but
believed the Tahoe was traveling between 40 and 50 miles per hour. He also identified
Singh as the driver of the Tahoe.
       Jessica R., the driver of the Honda Civic, underwent surgery to her pelvis and
treatment for a brain injury and facial fractures. She was discharged from the hospital in
a wheelchair after several weeks and was required to undergo physical and occupational
therapy. She returned to work, but was terminated due to outbursts she attributed to the
accident.
                                      DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent Singh on appeal.
       Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting
that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Singh was advised of his right to file a

                                             4.
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30
days elapsed, and we received no communication from Singh.
      Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Singh.
                                       DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                            5.