Court Opinion

ID: 9386504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 19:02:44.82106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.936475
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/12/23 P. v. Sidhu 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F083564
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. BF172396B)
                    v.

 MANPREET SINGH SIDHU,                                                                    OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G.
Bush, Colette M Humphrey, Michael E. Dellostritto, David R. Zulfa, and Charles R.
Brehmer, Judges.

         Valerie G. Wass, 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 De Santos, J.
       Manpreet Singh Sidhu (defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction on
counts of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. His appointed appellate
counsel makes no claims of error and asks this court to independently review the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Defendant has been advised
of his right to make supplemental contentions and he has filed a letter. We detect no
arguable issues and therefore affirm the judgment.
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On the morning of January 16, 2018, a California Highway Patrol officer was
patrolling State Route 65 near James Road on the outskirts north of Bakersfield. Shortly
before 7:00 a.m., the officer initiated a traffic stop of a white GMC Yukon traveling
southbound at 74 mph in a 55 mph zone. A portion of the vehicle had been spray-painted
black, and it had a paper “dealer plate” advertising the name of an automotive business.
       The driver of the Yukon was Adam Barness, a resident of Los Angeles County.
He was accompanied by defendant, who occupied a rear passenger seat. There was a
third person in the front passenger seat.
       Barness claimed to have left his wallet at home and was unable to produce any
documentation for the vehicle. The officer asked, “Where are you guys coming from?”
Barness replied, “Los Angeles.” When the officer pointed out the inconsistency in their
direction of travel, Barness and defendant made statements indicating that they had
recently turned around in search of a gas station.
       The officer located the vehicle identification number (VIN) and returned to his
patrol car to perform a VIN check. He discovered the GMC Yukon had been reported
stolen in Los Angeles approximately five weeks earlier. Following the arrival of backup
officers, Barness and defendant were ordered out of the vehicle and arrested. The man in
the front passenger seat (the victim) failed to respond to verbal commands.
       The officers soon realized the victim was dead. A Mobile Video/Audio Recording
System (MVARS) recorded one officer commenting that rigor mortis had already set in.

                                             2.
The victim’s right arm was noted to be positioned “under the lap portion” of the seat belt,
which the officers interpreted to mean “he didn’t sit himself in the seat.”
       Barness and defendant were taken into custody by the sheriff’s depaerment. The
GMC Yukon was seized and searched. Investigators found multiple firearms, a shovel, a
can of gasoline, three cans of spray paint, methamphetamine and smoking paraphernalia,
a black ski mask, and a “fingerless glove.” Inside the rear seat pocket of the driver’s seat
was a matching glove and a braided metal wire. Several of these items were swabbed for
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.
       Barness invoked his right to remain silent, but he complied with a search warrant
for his DNA. Defendant waived his rights and claimed ignorance of any wrongdoing
apart from Barness’s speed violation. He described Barness as a casual acquaintance
known to him as “Beto” or “Guero” whom he had met a few months earlier through a
man he called “Gatto.”
       According to defendant’s initial story, Barness picked him up from a certain 7-
Eleven convenience store in South Los Angeles sometime between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00
a.m. on the day of their arrest. There were vague allegations of a prearranged plan for
Barness to give defendant a ride to defendant’s parents’ home in Bakersfield. Defendant
had seen Barness drive the GMC Yukon on prior occasions, and he was under the
impression Barness was a “rich guy” who owned multiple cars.
       Defendant denied knowing the victim. He claimed the victim was already in the
front passenger seat of the Yukon when Barness arrived at the 7-Eleven. Barness said
that his “buddy” was sleeping, and defendant had paid no further attention to the man.
       At the end of the interview, defendant advised that his DNA would likely be found
on the metal wire discovered inside of the Yukon. He explained that the item was “on the
seat” when he first entered the vehicle, and he had touched it. Subsequently, on a date
not specified in the record, detectives obtained store surveillance footage from the time of
defendant’s alleged meet-up with Barness at the 7-Eleven. The video reportedly showed

                                             3.
defendant getting into the driver’s seat of a Nissan sport utility vehicle and driving out of
the parking lot.
       On January 18, 2018, an autopsy was performed on the victim. A homicide
detective from the Kern County Sheriff’s Office attended the examination. The victim
was noted to have abrasions on his face and the inside of his lip. There was an apparent
ligature mark across his neck. The cause of death was determined to be ligature
strangulation.
       The detective showed the medical examiner a photograph of the metal wire found
inside of the GMC Yukon. The medical examiner opined that the victim’s injuries could
have been caused by the wire. At the detective’s request, swab samples were taken from
the victim’s face and neck for DNA testing.
       According to a criminalist involved in the DNA testing, the Kern Regional Crime
Lab reported the test results sometime “around March of 2018.” Barness’s DNA was
matched to swab samples taken from the victim’s face. The victim’s DNA was found on
the middle portion of the metal wire and exterior portions of the gloves seized from
inside the GMC Yukon. Defendant’s DNA was found on the ends of the metal wire, as
well as on interior and exterior portions of the gloves.
       On May 29, 2018, a criminal complaint was filed charging defendant and “Ben
Barness” (the alias Barness had used at the time of his arrest) with murder (Pen. Code,
§ 187) and conspiracy to commit murder (id., §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187) in connection
with the victim’s death. The complaint was amended a few days later to charge Barness
by his true name. In June 2018, defendant agreed to a second interview with detectives.
       Defendant admitted to having previously met the victim while accompanying
Barness on a drug-related errand. The victim had allegedly owed money to the man
defendant called “Gatto,” and Barness had collected the money on Gatto’s behalf.
Defendant provided details about a residence occupied by a female, which was consistent

                                              4.
with the victim’s living arrangements. One of the detectives said, “You just described his
house to us.” It was unclear from defendant’s story when the prior incident had occurred.
       Defendant had previously described Gatto as an “Indian guy” who was both a
friend and neighbor. In his second interview, he again called Gatto his “friend” but also
alleged Gatto was a member of the “Florence gang” who sold illegal narcotics and had a
tattoo of the letter F on his face. Defendant maintained Barness was a mere acquaintance
with whom he occasionally got high. Barness was portrayed as a “rich guy” with an
affinity for cars, guns, and recreational drugs.
       Unaware detectives had already viewed the 7-Eleven surveillance footage,
defendant continued to allege he met up with Barness at the store on the day of their
arrest. As before, he denied knowing how or when the victim had died. This time,
however, he also denied having ever touched the metal wire.
       A preliminary hearing commenced in February 2019, but only two witnesses
testified before the parties agreed to continue the proceedings. The hearing resumed in
June 2019, at which time the People introduced evidence Barness and the victim had
worked together at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles. The victim had a life insurance
policy through his employer, and he had named Barness as the beneficiary in May 2017.
       In July 2019, defendant and Barness were charged by information with
premeditated murder (count 1) and conspiracy to commit murder (count 2). Barness,
who faced additional charges, later moved under Penal Code section 995 to set aside the
information for lack of probable cause. Defendant summarily joined in the motion with
regard to counts 1 and 2. In November 2019, the motion was denied.
       On July 1, 2020, a hearing was held pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2
Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Defendant’s legal counsel had been replaced a week earlier due
to an asserted conflict, and defendant was now expressing concerns about the
competency of his newly appointed counsel. The hearing ended with defendant
admitting his concerns were based on unfounded rumors the attorney had been disbarred .

                                              5.
       In March 2021, defendant’s appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw because
of an asserted conflict. In May 2021, the third attorney appointed to represent defendant
was permitted to withdraw due to an alleged conflict. In July and August 2021,
additional Marsden hearings were conducted regarding the fourth attorney appointed to
represent defendant. The Marsden motions were denied.
       Beginning August 31, 2021, and continuing through September 24, 2021,
defendant and Barness were jointly tried before a single jury. On the second day of trial,
the People filed an amended information to allege overt acts in connection with the
conspiracy charge. The amended portion of count 2 alleged as follows:

       “Overt Act #1: The defendants met on January 15, 2018–January 16, 2018,
       in Los Angeles County, California. Overt Act #2: One [or] both of the
       defendants picked up [the victim]. Overt Act #3: One [or] both of the
       defendants killed [the victim] while [the victim] was inside the GMC
       Yukon. Overt Act #4: The defendants traveled to Kern County, California,
       to dispose of [the victim’s] body. Overt Act #5: The defendants tried to
       hide the fact [the victim] was dead [from the CHP officer who made the
       traffic stop].” (Some capitalization omitted.)
       As reflected in the prosecutor’s opening statement, the People theorized defendant
and Barness killed the victim with the expectation Barness would receive $50,000 in life
insurance proceeds and defendant would be paid a share of the money for his assistance.
This underdeveloped theory generally ignored the practical difficulties of collecting on
the policy in the event all evidence of the insured’s death had been burned and/or buried
in a remote location. The prosecutor’s closing arguments theorized Barness and
defendant were “very active participant[s]” in a “drug ring” that operated out of Los
Angeles. Defendant was portrayed as Barness’s “lackey.”
       Trial counsel for Barness argued defendant acted alone in killing the victim. The
attorney proposed a scenario in which defendant had suddenly and unexpectedly
strangled the victim from behind approximately “20 minutes before the car was pulled
over.” It was suggested defendant may have experienced temporary psychosis from the

                                            6.
effects of methamphetamine. But this theory did not explain why the victim was found
with his right arm belted underneath the lap portion of his seat belt.
       Defendant took the stand and blamed everything on Barness. His testimony began
with a convoluted story about being victimized in an extortion scheme carried out by
Barness and “Gatto.” When he initially refused to comply with their demands, Barness
beat him with a baseball bat. Defendant was then forced, under threat of additional
physical harm, to serve as an illegal narcotics courier. In this version of events, Barness
was a high-ranking gang member and Gatto was his “right-hand man.”
       Defendant testified that Barness contacted him on January 16, 2018, at around
4:00 a.m., with instructions to meet him at a house in Burbank. Defendant first went to
the 7-Eleven where he worked in search of a ride. Unable to find someone to help him
(he did not want to illegally drive without a license), defendant drove himself to Burbank
in a Nissan Xterra—a vehicle Barness had previously given to him for the purpose of
transporting narcotics. Defendant arrived at the meeting place to find Barness, Gatto, and
the victim in a cul-de-sac area. The victim, who appeared to be in a drug-induced stupor,
was already seated inside of the GMC Yukon.
       According to the testimony, Barness and Gatto led defendant to a Ford Expedition
parked nearby and essentially tricked him into handling the gloves and metal wire that
were used to kill the victim. Barness ordered defendant to strangle the victim, but
defendant refused. Barness eventually strangled the victim himself and subsequently
forced defendant to accompany him on the drive to Kern County, where Barness planned
to dispose of the body.
       The jury found both men guilty as charged. For the crime of first degree murder,
defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. The same sentence was
imposed for the conspiracy conviction but stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. A
timely notice of appeal was filed in November 2021.

                                             7.
       In June 2022, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting independent review of the appellate record for
arguable issues. Counsel attested to having given the required notice to defendant,
providing a copy of the Wende brief, and informing defendant he had 30 days to submit
his own supplemental brief. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) On or
about June 22, 2022, this court provided separate notice to defendant of his right to file a
supplemental brief.
       In a handwritten letter dated July 12, 2022, defendant alleges he “can’t open or
close” his left hand due to arthritis that was diagnosed at Kern Medical Center sometime
“around 04/01/2021.” Defendant claims to have provided “those Medical Reports [to
his] trail [sic] attorney” and implies the attorney never acted upon the information. The
letter concludes with a request for this court to “check [his] files at Kern Medical Center
hospital.” Apart from this correspondence, no additional briefing has been filed.
                                      DISCUSSION
       “[T]he constitutional right to assistance of counsel entitles an indigent defendant
to independent review by the Court of Appeal when counsel is unable to identify any
arguable issue on appeal. California’s procedure for securing this right requires counsel
to file a brief summarizing the proceedings and the facts with citations to the record, and
requires the appellate court to review the entire record to determine whether there is any
arguable issue.” (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 119.)
       “[A]n arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be
one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the
contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential
for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to
the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.”
(People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109; see People v. Garcia (2018) 24
Cal.App.5th 314, 325 [describing an arguable issue “as one that is not frivolous”].)

                                             8.
       We have independently reviewed the record on appeal, including the Marsden
transcripts, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist. Defendant’s alleged arthritis
condition is not mentioned in any part of the record, so there is no basis for a related
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Appellate counsel has
fulfilled her obligations under Wende.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                              9.