People v. Cruz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081966 · 2023-10-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF2000322
Trial judge: Otis Sterling III
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Michele M. Castillo, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:27Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to 12 years in prison after a remand for consideration of new sentencing laws, imposing an upper term for stalking based on a prior conviction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of an upper term sentence for stalking based on a prior conviction under Senate Bill 567 “The court again imposed an upper term sentence for stalking based on Cruz’s certified prior convictions.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it did not discover any arguable issues for reversal on appeal after reviewing the record, effectively affirming the trial court's sentencing decision without detailed analysis.
Staying of the false imprisonment sentence under Section 654 “The sentence for false imprisonment was stayed under section 654.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but concluded no arguable issues for reversal were found during independent review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after identifying no arguable issues, requiring court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the mandatory Wende/Anders review process for indigent appellants. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing issues raised, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable errors were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

On remand after a prior appeal prompted by Senate Bill No. 567 and Assembly Bill No. 518, the Riverside County Superior Court resentenced Mario Cruz, Jr. to the same 12-year determinate term, reimposing the upper term for stalking based on certified records of his prior convictions and again staying the false imprisonment term under Penal Code section 654. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief identifying three possible issues, Cruz filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Reimposition of the upper term for stalking at resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567, based on certified records of defendant's prior convictions as the aggravating factor “The court again imposed an upper term sentence for stalking based on Cruz’s certified prior convictions.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(3), as amended by Senate Bill No. 567, expressly allows a sentencing court to rely on certified records of conviction to find prior-conviction aggravating circumstances without a jury finding or admission. The trial court recognized the new limits and relied on the permitted category of evidence, so the Wende court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is supported, although the opinion offers no analysis of whether the single prior-conviction factor sufficed to justify the upper term.
Exercise of discretion under amended Penal Code section 654 (Assembly Bill No. 518) to stay the false imprisonment term rather than the longer stalking term “Whether the court abused its discretion under section 654 by not staying the greater sentence.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Assembly Bill No. 518 removed the requirement that the longest term be imposed and gave the trial court discretion to choose which term to stay; it did not require the court to stay the greater term. Nothing in the opinion suggests the court misunderstood its discretion, and declining to stay the longer term is within the range of permissible choices, so the Wende conclusion is defensible.
Treatment of the stalking and false imprisonment convictions as arising from the same course of conduct for section 654 purposes “Did the court err by failing to find the convictions for stalking and false imprisonment arose from the same course of conduct.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion states the false imprisonment sentence was stayed under section 654, which is the relief a same-course-of-conduct finding would produce; the identified issue therefore appears to lack any prejudicial consequence. The opinion does not explain this, but on the record described there is no arguable error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, offered the defendant a chance to file his own brief, and independently reviewed the record, reaching a result consistent with section 1170, subdivision (b)(3)'s express allowance for reliance on certified records of prior convictions and section 654's discretionary stay provision. It did not, however, discuss any of the three issues counsel flagged or cite the governing sentencing authority, leaving the reader to infer why the Senate Bill No. 567 and section 654 questions are not arguable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/13/23 P. v. Cruz CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081966

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF2000322)

MARIO CRUZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Otis Sterling III, Judge. Affirmed. Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Mario Cruz, Jr. of stalking with a prior conviction for the same offense (Pen. Code,1 § 646.9, subd. (c)(2)); one count of inflicting corporal injury on a person in a dating relationship (§ 273.5); and false 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. imprisonment (§ 236). The court found Cruz had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds (b)-(i)). Cruz was sentenced to a determinate term of 12 years consisting of the upper term of five years for stalking, doubled to 10 years for the strike prior; one year for the infliction of corporal injury, which was one-third the middle term, doubled for the strike prior. The sentence for false imprisonment was stayed under section 654. Cruz appealed and this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing because of the enactment of Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1.3) and Assembly Bill No. 518 (Stats. 2021, ch. 441, § 1), which were enacted after the original sentencing in this case. (People v. Cruz (Sept. 8, 2022, D079151) [nonpub.

opn.].)2 On remand, the trial court conducted a new sentencing hearing. The court recognized its use of aggravating factors to support an upper term sentence were limited by Senate Bill No. 567. The court again imposed an upper term sentence for stalking based on Cruz’s certified prior convictions. The court again imposed a term of 12 years. Cruz filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Cruz the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

2 We grant appellant’s request to take judicial notice of our opinion in case No. D079151. 2 We fully addressed the facts of the offenses in our prior opinion, we will not repeat that discussion here. DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court violated Senate Bill No. 567 when the court imposed the same upper term sentence based on a single aggravating factor from appellant’s prior conviction. 2. Whether the court abused its discretion under section 654 by not staying the greater sentence. 3. Did the court err by failing to find the convictions for stalking and false imprisonment arose from the same course of conduct. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cruz on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12