From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sinha

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 9, 2011
No. D056543 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2011)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMAN SINHA, Defendant and Appellant. D056543 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division February 9, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCD222762, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge.

AARON, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Aman Sinha pled guilty to one count of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) (count 4) and one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422) (count 7). The trial court sentenced Sinha to an aggregate term of six years eight months in prison, comprised of the upper term of six years on count 4, and eight months on count 7, to be served consecutively to the term on count 4. We affirm.

Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In light of Sinha's plea of guilty, there was no trial in this case. We therefore rely on the probation report's recitation of the facts of the underlying offenses.

A. Factual background

On the morning of September 7, 2009, Sinha got into a heated argument with his wife, Debbie. At approximately 9:00 a.m. that morning, Sinha poured rum on Debbie and his two children, ages four and eight. Sinha produced a lighter and threatened to set them all on fire. Sinha attempted to ignite the lighter, but was unable to obtain a full flame. Sinha grabbed his eight-year-old daughter's hair and pulled it. Debbie struggled with Sinha, and attempted to call the police on the telephone. Sinha broke the telephone that Debbie was using. Debbie then obtained her cell phone and called 911. Sinha forced Debbie to the floor, causing her to drop the cell phone. Sinha's eight-year-old daughter picked up the cell phone and spoke to a 911 dispatcher. Sinha fled the apartment, and Debbie locked the door. While police were en route, Sinha returned to the apartment and attempted to break down the locked entry door. Police arrived and arrested Sinha as he was sitting on the floor outside the apartment. After officers placed Sinha in handcuffs, Sinha became combative and officers applied pepper spray to him.

B. Procedural background

On September 10, 2009, the People charged Sinha with three counts of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) (counts 1, 2, and 3); two counts of child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a)) (counts 4 and 5); one count of corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) (count 6); three counts of making a criminal threat (§ 422) (counts 7, 8, and 9); one count of attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) (count 10); and one count of resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 11).

On September 23, Sinha pled guilty to counts 4 and 7. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges on the People's motion. In October 2009, the trial court sentenced Sinha to six years eight months in prison. Sinha timely appeals.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. A review of the record discloses no error

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error, as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) Was Sinha's right to due process violated when he was denied the right to cross-examine and confront an adverse witness at sentencing? (2) Did the trial court err in relying on Sinha's prior arrest history in imposing sentence? (3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying probation, imposing the upper term on count 4, and in ordering the term on count 7 to be served to consecutively to the term imposed on count 4?

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Sinha has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

B. The claims raised in Sinha's supplemental brief have no merit

After counsel filed a Wende brief, we granted Sinha permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He filed a supplemental brief in which he raises several claims. None has merit. Sinha claims that the prosecutor improperly "serv[ed] as a witness." The record discloses no support for this contention. Sinha raises three claims with respect to the probation report: 1) that the report was not timely served; 2) that the report improperly included Sinha's arrest record; and 3) that the report disclosed disputed facts, thus necessitating a presentencing hearing. None of these claims was raised at Sinha's sentencing hearing. The claims are thus forfeited. (See People v. Welch (1993)5 Cal.4th 228, 234 ["It is settled that failure to object and make an offer of proof at the sentencing hearing concerning alleged errors or omissions in the probation report waives the claim on appeal"].) Sinha also claims that his counsel was "ineffective." The record provides no support for this contention.

In a separate claim, Sinha maintains that "even though appellant made no objections on the grounds presented here, the challenge may be asserted" because arguments pertaining to "ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant's mental condition, and [the] illegal[ity] [of a]sentence" may be raised for the first time on appeal. None of these exceptions apply to Sinha's objections as to the probation report.

In addition, Sinha claims that he pled guilty to counts 4 and 7 in exchange for a promised 16-month sentence, and that the trial court violated the plea bargain by failing to impose this sentence. The record belies this claim. The plea form states, "I understand that I may receive this maximum punishment as a result of my plea: 6 yrs 8 mo... in State Prison." Sinha placed his initials in a box next to this statement and signed the plea form. Further, at the plea hearing, the trial court stated:

"The form indicates you'll be pleading guilty to count 4, child abuse, and count 7, making a criminal threat. And the People are going to move to dismiss the remainder of the charges in exchange for your plea. There [are] no deals as far as sentencing. [¶] Is that your understanding of your plea agreement?"

Sinha responded, "Mr. Shapiro [defense counsel]? Yes."

Sinha also claims that the trial court and defense counsel erred by failing to adequately investigate his mental competency prior to the plea hearing. Sinha has not obtained a certificate of probable cause, and thus may not raise in this appeal any claims that implicate the validity of his guilty plea. (See People v. Hodges (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1105 ["defendant's mental competency argument is barred for lack of certificate of probably cause"].)

Finally, Sinha claims that the trial court erred under in imposing an upper term on count 4, under the rationale Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham). Sinha committed his charged offenses, and was sentenced, well after the Legislature amended the determinate sentencing law (DSL) in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Cunningham. (Stats. 2007, ch. 3, § 2.) The amendments to the DSL cured the constitutional defects identified in Cunningham. (People v. Wilson (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 988, 992.) Thus, the trial court did not commit Cunningham error in sentencing Sinha to an upper term in this case.

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J., IRION, J.


Summaries of

People v. Sinha

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 9, 2011
No. D056543 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Sinha

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMAN SINHA, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Feb 9, 2011

Citations

No. D056543 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2011)