People v. Randhawa CA3

Filed 2/9/26 P. v. Randhawa CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C103138

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2004-0009433) v.

RAJWINDER SINGH RANDHAWA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rajwinder Singh Randhawa appeals from the trial court’s correspondence declining to address his request for recall and resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing the trial court had discretion under section 1385 to dismiss a firearm use enhancement and resentence him. Because the trial court’s correspondence is not an

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

appealable post-judgment order and does not otherwise affect defendant’s substantial rights, we will dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2011, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found true the allegation that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury with a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate prison term of 28 years and a determinate term of nine years. In 2024, defendant filed a petition seeking resentencing under section 1172.1, which asked the trial court to dismiss the firearm use enhancement. In response to the petition, the trial court sent defendant signed correspondence, which states in relevant part: “Prior to the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Leg. Sess.) (‘AB 600’) a court’s authority to recall a defendant’s sentence pursuant to [former section 1172.1] was limited to the period of 120 days from the date the defendant was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (‘CDCR’). Effective January 1, 2024, AB 600 amended [section 1172.1] to allow the court, in addition to that 120-day period, to also recall a sentence ‘at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.’ In either situation, the recall is initiated by the court, on its own motion, not by the defendant. In fact, [section 1172.1, subdivision (c)] states: [¶] A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond. [¶] No action has been initiated by the court, on its motion, to recall your sentence at this time. If the court decides to initiate such action in the future, you will be notified.” Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.