P. v. Randhawa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/16/13  P. v. Randhawa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(San
Joaquin)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   RAJWINDER SINGH RANDHAWA,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C070813   (Super. Ct. No. SF093267A)

 

 

 

 

            A jury convicted defendant Rajwinder
Singh Randhawa of attempted murder and
found true certain gun and great bodily href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">injury enhancements. 

            Defendant now contends (1) the trial
court should have redacted the transcripts of a recorded jailhouse conversation
between defendant and his brother-in-law; and (2) the trial court should have
stayed the Penal Code section 12022.7 great bodily injury enhancement.  The Attorney General agrees with defendant’s
second contention. 

            We conclude (1) the trial court did
not err in admitting unredacted transcripts of the jailhouse conversation, and
(2) defendant is correct that one of the enhancements should be stayed.

            We will stay the Penal Code section
12022.7 enhancement and affirm the judgment as modified.

BACKGROUND

            Karnail Singh and his wife Ranjeet
Kaur were friends of defendant and his wife, Tejinder Kaur Randhawa.  Defendant and his wife often argued;
defendant’s wife told Singh and Kaur that defendant was volatile and violent.  The wife left defendant in early 2004,
storing some of her belongings with Singh and Kaur at their home.  When Singh informed defendant that
defendant’s wife picked up her clothes from Singh’s home, defendant became
upset. 

            Defendant came to the apartment of
Singh and Kaur one evening in September 2004, carrying a small briefcase.  He said he wanted to show them some
papers.  But then defendant repeatedly
asked Singh to divulge his wife’s location. 
When Singh said he did not know, defendant pulled a gun from his
briefcase and said:  “I will kill you and
then I will kill my wife.” 

            Singh stood up and said “my brother,
don’t [do] this thing to me.”  He tried
to grab the gun from defendant, but defendant then shot Singh in the
shoulder.  As Kaur picked up the phone to
call the police, defendant aimed his gun at her, and the gun fired twice.  Singh tried to hold defendant, but defendant
wrestled free and shot Singh in the chest, below his heart.  After the last shot, defendant said, “You are
gone now.  You are finished.  Leave me.” 


            Defendant went to his pickup truck
and drove off; Singh and Kaur ran after him. 
Singh eventually passed out from blood loss. 

            Four Winchester .380-caliber casings
and a bullet fragment were found on the apartment floor, as were defendant’s
shoes.  A briefcase left at the apartment
contained defendant’s driver’s license, his pink slip for a Nissan pickup
truck, business cards, several Winchester .380-caliber rounds, and a
passport.  Defendant’s fingerprints were
on a water glass found sitting on the coffee table.  In addition, defendant’s truck had blood on
the exterior when it was found in Union City on September 15, 2004.  A search of his residence found a box of 50
Winchester .380-caliber rounds. 

            Defendant’s sister told police
defendant may have fled from Canada to India. 
In 2009, defendant was arrested in Germany and transported to San
Joaquin County. 

            Defendant testified that his wife
moved to Fresno and wrongly accused him of threatening to kill her.  He said Singh gave defendant the gun, and on
the day of the incident defendant went to Singh’s home to return the gun and
the bullets.  Defendant said that when
they discussed immigration, Singh got angry and picked up the gun.  Defendant jumped on Singh in self-defense and
never intended to harm him, but the gun fired four times during the
struggle. 

            Additional facts relevant to
defendant’s contentions are included in the discussion.

            A jury found defendant guilty of
attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] with enhancements for personally discharging
a handgun causing great bodily injury and personally inflicting great bodily
injury (§§ 12022.53, subds. (a), (d), 12022.7, subd. (a)).  The trial court sentenced defendant to 37
years to life in prison. 

DISCUSSION

I

            Defendant contends the trial court
should have redacted the transcripts of a recorded jailhouse conversation
between defendant and his brother-in-law. 


A

            After defendant’s arrest, his
brother-in-law, Harjinder Sandhu, met defendant at the county jail.  Their conversation, spoken in Punjabi, was
recorded.  Defendant repeatedly asked the
brother-in-law to offer a bribe to Singh so that Singh would change his story;
defendant also discussed what Singh should say. 
In addition, defendant admitted that the bullets found at his house were
his, and that he had gone to India, England, France and Germany after the
attack.  He noted the “DA said he [was]
going to give me life, 25-30 years” and the “DA said that there isn’t a deal to
offer [me].”

            At trial, the parties stipulated
that two translations of the jail conversation were accurate
transcriptions.  The prosecutor
subsequently moved to admit both transcripts in their entirety.  Defense counsel argued that portions of the
transcripts should be redacted.  The
trial court determined there was nothing inadmissible in the transcripts and
admitted both in their entirety.

            After the verdict, defendant moved
for a new trial based on the transcripts, arguing the references to plea
negotiations should have been redacted. 
The trial court denied the motion. 


B

            Defendant claims his jail comment
that the district attorney said he would get life in prison, and the statement
that the district attorney did not have a deal or offer for him, should have
been redacted from the transcripts because they were not relevant, and they
improperly informed the jury of plea negotiations and defendant’s possible
punishment.  (Evid. Code, § 1153; >People v. Ruiloba (2005)
131 Cal.App.4th 674, 692-693.)

            But during the
cross-examination of Harjinder, which occurred before the trial court admitted the transcripts into evidence, defense counsel expressly mentioned
the alleged comment by the district attorney that he would give defendant “life, 25 to 30 years.”  Defense counsel asked Harjinder:  “Do you remember [defendant] talking to you
where he says the D.A. said he’s going to give me life, 25 to 30 years, and
then you said 25 to 30 years, what happened to the lawyer?  Did he hire one?  Did anything happen, or did nothing happen?”  Harjinder responded, “I did ask him if he had
hired an attorney or not.”  Because
defense counsel specifically referenced the district attorney’s alleged comment
about “life, 25 to 30 years,” the trial court did not err in admitting the
conversation without redaction to give proper context for that portion of the
discussion.

            We next address
defendant’s comment that the DA said
there was no deal to offer him.  Evidence
Code section 1153 provides in pertinent part: 
“Evidence . . . of an offer to plead guilty . . .
made by the defendant in a criminal action is inadmissible in any action[.]”  But “there is no need to protect the
defendant’s voluntary disclosures about the bargaining process made to third
persons uninvolved and unnecessary to the plea negotiations.  Those communications are not part of the bona
fide plea negotiations as they cannot be seen as an attempt to influence the
court or the prosecutor to accept a particular offer.  Thus, these statements are not embraced
within the statutory prohibition.”  (>People v. Magana (1993)
17 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1377.)

            Defendant’s
statement to Harjinder about the lack of a plea offer was not part of plea
negotiations and therefore was not barred by Evidence Code section 1153.  Moreover, the statement was relevant to
provide context to the conversation and to show that defendant had a motive to
bribe Singh.  The trial court did not err
in admitting the challenged portions of the transcripts.

II

            Defendant and the Attorney General
agree that the trial court should have stayed the section 12022.7
enhancement. 

            The trial court imposed a consecutive
25-year-to-life term for personally inflicting great bodily injury with a
firearm during an attempted murder pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions
(a) and (d), and it also imposed a consecutive three-year term for personally
inflicting great bodily injury pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision.
(a).  But section 12022.53, subdivision
(f) states in pertinent part:  “An
enhancement for great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or
12022.9 shall not be imposed on a person in addition to an enhancement imposed
pursuant to subdivision (d).” 

            Under the circumstances, the trial
court should have imposed the section 12022.53 enhancement, and imposed but
stayed execution of the section 12022.7 enhancement.  (People
v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126-1127.)  We will modify the judgment to stay the
section 12022.7 enhancement.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is modified to impose
but stay execution of the section 12022.7 enhancement.  As modified, the judgment is affirmed.  The trial court is directed to prepare an
amended abstract of judgment reflecting the modified judgment, and to forward a
certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. 

 

 

                                                                                                          MAURO                        , J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                        ROBIE                       , Acting P. J.

 

 

                        BUTZ                        , J.