People v. Dintelman CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Jul 25, 2025 No. D083745Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to maintain the original sentence after a limited remand, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to conduct a full resentencing or to modify the sentence under Penal Code section 654.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in declining to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 654 to impose a lesser sentence.
Whether the defendant was entitled to a full resentencing hearing upon remand.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Our limited remand, based on the passage of new legislation, did not implicate the full resentencing rule.”

“Review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by Dintelman’s appellate counsel, have disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”

Filed 7/25/25 P. v. Dintelman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083745

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF1907769)

DONOVAN DINTELMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION A jury found Donovan Dintelman guilty of six counts of robbery (Pen.

Code,1 § 211) and five counts of burglary (§ 459). Dintelman later admitted he had a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) that qualified as a strike prior

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)). After the trial court denied his motion to strike the prior, it sentenced Dintelman to a total term of 21 years in prison. Dintelman appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish he was the perpetrator and the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 315. While the appeal was pending, Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 518) was signed into law, amending section 654, and giving trial courts discretion to choose which sentence to impose when a defendant is convicted under two different provisions of the Penal Code for the same act. (People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343, 379.) We rejected Dintelman’s arguments but remanded the matter for the limited purposes of allowing the trial court to decide whether to exercise its new discretion under section 654. (See People v.

People v. Dintelman CA4/1

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083745

DONOVAN DINTELMAN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

KELETY, J.

CASTILLO, J.

AI Brief