People v. Singh CA3

California Court of Appeal Dec 11, 2020 No. C090173Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a Wende review of an order denying a postjudgment motion to recall a sentence, and dismissed the appeal as abandoned due to the defendant's failure to file a supplemental brief.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to Wende review in an appeal from an order denying a postjudgment motion to recall a sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d).
Whether an appeal from a postjudgment order should be dismissed as abandoned when the defendant fails to file a supplemental brief after being advised of the right to do so.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude defendant is not entitled to a Wende review and will dismiss this appeal as abandoned.”

“a defendant is not entitled to Wende review in such an appeal when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on appeal.”

“we will dismiss defendant’s appeal as abandoned.”

Filed 12/11/20 P. v. Singh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090173

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF-2018- 4164) v.

PRASHNEET SINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, C090442

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF-2018- 6647) v.

PRASHNEET SINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

In this consolidated appeal from denial of defendant’s motion to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d),1 appointed counsel for defendant Prashneet Singh, asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues in this consolidated appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We conclude defendant is not entitled to a Wende review and will dismiss this appeal as abandoned. BACKGROUND Defendant resolved case No. CFR-2018-4164 (the Battery Case) by pleading no contest to committing battery for the benefit of a street gang (§§ 186.22, subd. (d), 242) and admitting the prior strike allegation (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1)). In exchange, the parties agreed defendant would receive the lower term of one year, doubled to two for the prior strike, and the remaining enhancements would be dismissed. In addition, defendant would receive dismissal of two other pending cases. Thereafter, defendant resolved case No. CRF-2018-6647 (the Drug Case) by pleading no contest to bringing a controlled substance into jail (§ 4573) and admitting the prior strike allegation (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1)). In exchange, defendant would receive the lower base term of two years, doubled to four for the prior strike, and the remaining enhancements would be dismissed. This agreement contemplated a consecutive sentence of one year four months for the Battery Case. Defendant was sentenced in both the Drug Case and the Battery Case on March 22, 2019. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court designated the Drug Case as the principal term and sentenced defendant to two years, doubled to four because of the prior strike. For the Battery Case, defendant received a consecutive sentence of one-third the middle term (eight months), which was doubled to one year four months for the prior

People v. Singh CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C090173

PRASHNEET SINGH,

THE PEOPLE, C090442

PRASHNEET SINGH,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief