People v. Singh CA3

Filed 8/31/23 P. v. Singh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097142

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE018212)

v.

HARPREET SINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Harpreet Singh guilty of assault with the intent to commit sexual penetration by force, conspiracy to dissuade a witness, dissuading a witness, and aggravated kidnapping, with on-bail enhancements; defendant admitted a serious felony and strike allegations as well. (People v. Singh (Oct. 28, 2021, C088997) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant was sentenced to prison for life plus a determinate term and appealed; we modified the aggravated kidnapping conviction to simple kidnapping and remanded the matter for resentencing. (Ibid.) At resentencing, the trial court declined defendant’s

1

request to strike his strike prior and resentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 16 years in prison. Defendant appeals a second time arguing recent amendments to Penal Code1 section 1385, subdivision (c) enacted by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1) (Senate Bill 81) apply to prior strike convictions and that the trial court erred by declining to strike his prior strike under the new law. Because we conclude that a prior strike does not constitute an “enhancement” within the plain meaning of Senate Bill 81’s amendments to section 1385 (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1), we find the new legislation does not apply to defendant’s prior strike conviction. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDUREAL BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not relevant to the issue on appeal. We recount below the relevant procedural history following issuance of the remittitur in People v. Singh, supra, C088997. Prior to the September 2022 resentencing hearing, defense counsel filed a resentencing memorandum requesting a full resentencing on all previous sentencing choices. Counsel also urged the trial court to apply recent legislative changes to the sentencing statutes, including, as relevant here, Senate Bill 81, which added subdivision (c) to section 1385 to provide guidance to the trial courts for when to strike an enhancement. (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1.) Defendant argued that under Senate Bill 81 the trial court should strike his prior strike conviction as an “enhancement” that was older than five years (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(H), added by Stats. 2021, ch.721, § 1), or, at a minimum, that the court should dismiss his prior strike in the interest of justice under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.