People v. Singh CA3

Filed 7/3/23 P. v. Singh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C097537

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08F09592)

RAVINESH SINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

In September 2013, a jury found defendant Ravinesh Singh guilty of first degree murder and found that he personally used a firearm. Prior to the verdict and over defendant’s objection, the trial court had admitted handwritten rap lyrics found at defendant’s home, ruling they were relevant to show intent and motive. The trial court had also instructed the jury on willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder, but did not instruct on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a sentence of 50 years to life in state prison. This court affirmed the judgment in 2018, rejecting defendant’s challenge to the admission of the rap lyrics. (People v. Singh (May 14, 2018, C075295) [nonpub. opn.].

1

In June 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95, now 1172.6.1 The trial court denied defendant’s petition, finding him ineligible for relief as a matter of law because defendant was the actual killer and the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Defendant now appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing. His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) or People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and asked that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal. In April 2023, this court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief raising any argument he wanted us to consider. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing (1) the prosecutor was not able to prove when the rap lyrics admitted at trial had been written, (2) the rap lyrics did not have sufficient similarity to the murder, (3) a police detective should not have been allowed to testify regarding the rap lyrics , (4) under newly enacted Evidence Code section 352.2, the rap lyrics are no longer admissible, (5) the prosecutor did not prove that the rap lyrics were written by defendant, and (6) we should appoint new appellate counsel for defendant. Because the record indicates defendant is not entitled to relief under section 1172.6, we will affirm the trial court’s order denying the petition for resentencing. DISCUSSION Senate Bill No. 1437 (Reg. Sess. 2017-2018) (Senate Bill 1437), which became effective on January 1, 2019, “amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is