People v. Singh CA3

Filed 6/14/24 P. v. Singh CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099583

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE000947)

v.

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Raghvendra Singh of filing a fraudulent or forged document, namely a proof of service attached to a motion. On appeal, defendant contends that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty of violating Penal Code1 section 115 because the proof of service could not be legally filed. Specifically, defendant claims the proof of service could not be legally filed because he lacked

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

standing to file the motion, the motion was untimely filed, and the motion lacked citations to legal authority. Defendant also argues that the lack of sufficient evidence supporting his conviction violated his due process rights and rights to a jury trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, the city of Elk Grove filed a lawsuit against Kiran Rawat, who was married to defendant at the time. City attorney Jonathan Hobbs’s office filed a lawsuit alleging that Rawat’s home was substandard and a nuisance. Because defendant was not the record owner of the property, the city did not name him in the lawsuit. Rawat filed a cross-complaint against the city and defendant. The trial court bifurcated the cross- complaint portion of the case so that the original portion of the lawsuit could proceed. Even though defendant was a witness, not a party, in the main lawsuit, he filed several motions in the case. After Hobbs secured a judgment against Rawat, defendant filed a handwritten motion to set aside the judgment, disqualify Hobbs, and enter judgment in defendant’s favor. Attached to the motion was a handwritten proof of service, which listed Hobbs as a person served. However, Hobbs was not served. Hobbs recognized the handwriting in the motion and the proof of service as defendant’s. Hobbs opposed the motion on the bases that: the proof of service was defective for not including the date and manner of service, defendant lacked standing to file the motion, and the motion was untimely. Ultimately, the trial court denied defendant’s motion. In July 2023, an amended information charged defendant with unlawfully and knowingly offering to be filed a false and forged proof of service at the Sacramento Superior Court. (§ 115, subd. (a).) The amended information also alleged that: defendant had 14 prior convictions for violating section 115, subdivision (a), and he was on postrelease community supervision when he committed the instant crime.