People v. Dhillon CA3

Filed 3/23/23 P. v. Dhillon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C095702

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FE005314)

RAVINDEER DHILLON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Ravindeer Dhillon guilty of felony identity theft, and the trial court found true allegations that defendant was previously convicted of two strike offenses. After denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike allegations under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate four years in state prison. Defendant now contends (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for identity theft, and (2) the trial court erred in ruling that changes to Penal Code section 13851 enacted by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1) (Senate Bill 81) do not apply to prior strike offenses.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Finding no error, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND After responding to a report of a vehicle blocking traffic, California Highway Patrol Officer Liz Dutton found a black 2013 Mercedes Benz in the road with its flashers activated and engine running. Defendant was asleep in the driver’s seat and Officer Dutton saw what appeared to her to be a rifle in the back seat. It was actually a BB gun. There was a black backpack on the front passenger seat. Officer Dutton looked inside the backpack where, among other things, she found five blank checks belonging to Olivehurst Public Utility District along with debit and credit cards belonging to people other than defendant. Officer Dutton also found a recent bill of sale for the vehicle made out to defendant and a notebook with the personal information of numerous individuals. California Highway Patrol Special Investigations Unit Officer William Mason conducted a further investigation. Officer Mason observed that the notebook was tabbed on the right-hand side; each tab corresponded to identifying information for a different person. There were 38 handwritten profiles that included names, dates of birth, social security numbers, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, driver’s license numbers, and home addresses. Ten of those profiles corresponded to personal identifying information for DMV applicants. The People charged defendant with the identity theft of 10 or more people (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3).) The People further alleged defendant had two prior strike convictions pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). At trial, four people testified that the notebook contained their personal identifying information. They also testified that they do not know defendant and did not give him permission to possess their information. Officer Mason testified the information contained in the notebook could be used to open a bank account, a credit card, or a debit card. The information also could be used to obtain a loan. In addition, the manner in