People v. Janda CA3

California Court of Appeal Jun 23, 2023 No. C096945Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the upper-term sentence by failing to object in the trial court, failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court's misstatement regarding parole required no corrective action.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in imposing an upper-term sentence in violation of Senate Bill 567.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the upper-term sentence.
Whether the trial court's inaccurate statement regarding the length of parole requires correction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant could have, but did not, object to the upper term sentence. His failure to object forfeited the appellate challenge here.”

“Because we cannot exclude a reasonable tactical basis for the absence of an objection, defendant has failed to carry his burden on direct appeal to show his counsel provided ineffective assistance.”

“We conclude the comment requires no further action on our part.”

Filed 6/23/23 P. v. Janda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C096945

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 20CF03300, 21CM01750, 21CF03198) JOHNNY RAM SINGH JANDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In three separate cases, defendant Johnny Ram Singh Janda pleaded no contest to criminal threats, exhibiting a deadly weapon, carrying a dirk or dagger, and disobeying a court order. On the principal term of criminal threats, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years.

Defendant now contends (1) the trial court erred in sentencing him to the upper term in violation of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b);1 Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3, eff. Jan. 1, 2022); (2) if he forfeited the first argument, his counsel was ineffective in failing to object; and (3) we should correct the trial court’s inaccurate statement that defendant would be subject to parole for three years following his release from custody. We conclude (1) defendant forfeited the challenge based on Senate Bill 567, (2) he has not established ineffective assistance, and (3) because the trial court’s comment regarding parole was not part of the imposed sentence, it requires no further action on our part. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because the parties stipulated to the probation report as the factual basis for defendant’s pleas, we take the facts from that report. In case No. 20CF03300, defendant threatened to kill his father with a knife in July 2020. Specifically, defendant was under the influence of drugs, picked up a kitchen knife, thrust it at his father, and said “I’m going to kill you . . . .” The complaint, later deemed an information, charged defendant with criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)) and exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)). In case No. 21CM01750, defendant violated the protective order issued in the prior case by telling his father he was going to kill his father’s wife (defendant’s mother) in March 2021. The complaint in that case charged defendant with disobeying a court order. (§ 166, subd. (a)(4).) In case No. 21CF03198, defendant was kneeling on the sidewalk in front of his home in June 2021. A responding officer found an eight-inch chef’s knife in his right

People v. Janda CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief