The People v. Randhawa CA3
Filed 9/16/13 P. v. Randhawa CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, C070813
v. (Super. Ct. No. SF093267A)
RAJWINDER SINGH RANDHAWA,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted defendant Rajwinder Singh Randhawa of attempted murder and found true certain gun and great bodily injury enhancements. Defendant now contends (1) the trial court should have redacted the transcripts of a recorded jailhouse conversation between defendant and his brother-in-law; and (2) the trial court should have stayed the Penal Code section 12022.7 great bodily injury enhancement. The Attorney General agrees with defendant’s second contention.
1
We conclude (1) the trial court did not err in admitting unredacted transcripts of the jailhouse conversation, and (2) defendant is correct that one of the enhancements should be stayed. We will stay the Penal Code section 12022.7 enhancement and affirm the judgment as modified. BACKGROUND Karnail Singh and his wife Ranjeet Kaur were friends of defendant and his wife, Tejinder Kaur Randhawa. Defendant and his wife often argued; defendant’s wife told Singh and Kaur that defendant was volatile and violent. The wife left defendant in early 2004, storing some of her belongings with Singh and Kaur at their home. When Singh informed defendant that defendant’s wife picked up her clothes from Singh’s home, defendant became upset. Defendant came to the apartment of Singh and Kaur one evening in September 2004, carrying a small briefcase. He said he wanted to show them some papers. But then defendant repeatedly asked Singh to divulge his wife’s location. When Singh said he did not know, defendant pulled a gun from his briefcase and said: “I will kill you and then I will kill my wife.” Singh stood up and said “my brother, don’t [do] this thing to me.” He tried to grab the gun from defendant, but defendant then shot Singh in the shoulder. As Kaur picked up the phone to call the police, defendant aimed his gun at her, and the gun fired twice. Singh tried to hold defendant, but defendant wrestled free and shot Singh in the chest, below his heart. After the last shot, defendant said, “You are gone now. You are finished. Leave me.” Defendant went to his pickup truck and drove off; Singh and Kaur ran after him. Singh eventually passed out from blood loss. Four Winchester .380-caliber casings and a bullet fragment were found on the apartment floor, as were defendant’s shoes. A briefcase left at the apartment contained
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)