People v. Randhawa CA3

Filed 3/7/23 P. v. Randhawa CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096424

v. (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE- 2020-0005468) SHER JARNAIL SINGH RANDHAWA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Sher Jarnail Singh Randhawa asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will remand the matter for the trial court to impose the appropriate fines and assessments. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the convictions. I In June 2020, the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office placed a listing on the Craigslist Modesto Website in the “Missed Connections” section. The listing’s heading read, “Saw you in town (Lathrop)” and the body read, “Young female looking for the guy

1

I saw driving in town. Are you him?” and provided a phone number to a decoy telephone. The next day defendant called the decoy telephone. The officer (hereafter the decoy) did not answer. Instead, the next day, the decoy sent a text message saying, “Hey.” Shortly thereafter, defendant texted the decoy telephone number asking if he could call. When the decoy did not answer, defendant called. Again, the decoy did not answer, but shortly thereafter responded with another text, “I only have texts on Wi-Fi on my phone.” The defendant and the decoy engaged in an extended text message exchange over two hours. The conversation started out with defendant asking, “Hey who u see in Lathrop? May i know about u who u r? What u need?” and “What u want?” After defendant revealed to the decoy he was a “man of 35, can make you happy,” the decoy texted, “i wish my age wont bother you.” When defendant asked the decoy’s age and whether the decoy was female, the decoy replied, “young fit female 13 yrs old but dont let that bother you.” At first defendant responded, “Oh no u r too young,” but then he said, “It bothers. But i wanna look u.” Referring to the decoy’s age, the decoy texted defendant, “that’s just a number not my first time.” During the text conversation, the two exchanged texts to meet up in Lathrop later that day. When the decoy asked defendant what they were going to do when they met up, defendant demurred and asked the decoy what the decoy wanted to do. The decoy responded by saying the decoy would orally copulate defendant and defendant could take it from there. Defendant texted he would do what the decoy wanted, and wanted to talk to the decoy and then engage in oral copulation and intercourse. Twice during the conversation, defendant texted the decoy, “u no law enforcement?” The decoy responded to the second question in the negative.