People v. Bhakta CA4/1

Filed 11/19/20 P. v. Bhakta CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D075566

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD255550)

PRAKASHKUMAR BHAKTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joseph P. Brannigan, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, A. Natasha Cortina and Kelley Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. After a grand jury indicted Prakashkumar Bhakta, he pleaded guilty to 113 counts as follows: three counts of conspiracy to commit procuring or

offering a false or forged instrument (Penal Code,1 §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 115, subd. (a)), two counts of conspiracy to commit grand theft (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1); 487, subd. (a)); 82 counts of procuring or offering a false or forged instrument (§ 115, subd. (a)), four counts of grand theft by false pretenses (§ 487, subd. (a)), and 22 counts of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)). He admitted enhancements that certain offenses involved losses of over $100,000 (§ 1203.045), over $500,000 (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(2)), and over $1,300,000 (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(3)).2 The court sentenced Bhakta to seven years eight months in state prison, consisting of the midterm of 24 months each on count 2, the base count, and count 20; eight months on count 21, and three years for the section 186.11, subdivision (a)(2) enhancement. It imposed all other sentences concurrently or stayed them under section 654. Bhakta contends: (1) his count 2 sentence should be stayed under section 654 because insufficient evidence showed his involvement in the circumstances of that count; and (2) the court miscalculated the amount of the court security assessment it imposed under section 1465.8. The People argue that Bhakta did not raise his section 654 claim when he pleaded guilty to the charges; therefore, that claim is forfeited under