People v. Villa CA5

Opinion

Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Villa CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F089374 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-23-000657) v. LUIS MARTINEZ VILLA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Maria Elena Ramos Ratliff, Judge. Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Harrell, J. and Guerra, J. INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Luis Martinez Villa (appellant) pleaded no contest to felony grand theft and was placed on probation. He committed additional theft offenses while on probation. After he was convicted of the new offenses, the trial court terminated probation in the first case, and sentenced appellant to an aggregate second strike term of four years eight months for both cases. On appeal, appellant’s counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On or about January 22, 2023, appellant and a codefendant took various items of clothing worth $1,183 out of the store in Modesto without paying. Plea and Probation On January 24, 2023, a complaint was filed in the Stanislaus County Superior Court case No. CR-23-000657, charging appellant with one count of felony grand theft in an amount more than $950 (Pen. Code1, §487, subd. (a)), and that he had a prior strike conviction. On February 6, 2023, appellant pleaded no contest to the charge and the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction. The court suspended sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for two years subject to mandatory terms and conditions, including that he obey all laws, and ordered him to stay 100 yards away from the store.

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2. Probation Violation On April 26, 2024, the district attorney filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation in case No. CR-23-000657, because he committed new offenses consisting of two counts of felony grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)), and one count of misdemeanor theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). On May 29, 2024, the trial court arraigned appellant on new charges in case No. CR-24-000974, and he pleaded not guilty. The court revoked probation in case No. CR-23-000657 based on the filing of new charges. The hearing on the probation violation was continued until the criminal proceedings in the second case were resolved. Subsequent Convictions On October 14, 2024, the jury in case No. CR-24-000974, found appellant not guilty of count 1, grand theft, but guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)); guilty of count 2, felony grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)); and guilty of count 3, misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegation that appellant was convicted of robbery in 2021. After the trial court discharged the jury, it took judicial notice of the verdicts in case No. CR-24-000974, and found appellant violated probation in case No. CR-23-000657 by committing new offenses. Sentencing On January 17, 2025, the trial court found appellant’s prior robbery conviction was a serious felony and a prior strike conviction. The court denied appellant’s request to dismiss the prior strike conviction. In case No. CR-24-000974, the trial court sentenced appellant to the midterm of two years for count 2, felony grand theft, doubled to four years as the second strike term, with concurrent jail terms for misdemeanor counts 1 and 3. In case No. CR-23-000657, the trial court found appellant violated probation, denied his motion to be placed on probation again, and terminated probation as 3. unsuccessful. The court imposed eight months (one-third the midterm), for felony grand theft, to run consecutive to the sentence imposed in the other case. Appellant’s aggregate sentence for the two cases was four years eight months. On February 13, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in case No. CR-23-000657.2 DISCUSSION As noted above, appellant’s counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief also included counsel’s declaration indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on May 11, 2026, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. After independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2 Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal (F089038) from his convictions after the jury trial in case No. CR-24-000974. On April 30, 2026, this court filed the nonpublished opinion that affirmed the judgment in that case. (People v. Villa (Apr. 30, 2026, F089038) [nonpubl. opn.], modified upon denial of rehearing (May 27, 2026).

4.