People v. Singh CA3

Filed 11/2/23 P. v. Singh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097137

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE010982)

v.

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal after remand for resentencing. Appointed counsel for defendant Raghvendra Singh has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Having reviewed the record and defendant’s supplemental arguments, we affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are set forth in our unpublished opinion in People v. Singh (Dec. 9, 2021, C092034) (nonpub. opn.) and need not be recounted here. It suffices to say that defendant procured the filing of multiple false or forged proofs of service in various legal proceedings and also conspired to file two false or forged grant deeds. (Ibid.) A jury found defendant guilty of 14 counts of filing a false or forged instrument, in violation of Penal Code section 115, subdivision (a),1 and two counts of conspiracy to file a false or forged instrument. The jury also found true an allegation that defendant was convicted of more than one violation of section 115, subdivision (a), and the cumulative financial loss from all transactions exceeded $100,000. (People v. Singh, supra.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 12 years in prison. (Ibid.) On appeal from that judgment, this court reversed the cumulative financial loss finding, remanded the matter for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Singh, supra.) On remand, defense counsel filed a sentencing memorandum arguing for a grant of probation because defendant’s culpability for the crimes was reduced due to a mental condition not amounting to a defense, and because he would likely respond favorably to treatment that would be required as a condition of probation. Defense counsel also submitted “attached comments” from defendant, consisting of many pages of handwritten argument, most of which challenged the validity of defendant’s convictions or complained about prison conditions.2