People v. Sanchez CA3

Filed 8/4/25 P. v. Sanchez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100406

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE001945)

v.

ANGEL PINEDA SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Angel Pineda Sanchez was found guilty of numerous sex offenses against a minor and was sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of 15 years to life for three of those convictions, while the trial court stayed lesser determinate sentences on three other convictions that were based on the same conduct under Penal Code1 section 654. On appeal, this court affirmed defendant’s convictions, but remanded for resentencing to consider recent legislative changes to California’s sentencing laws. (People v. Sanchez (Feb. 10, 2023, C095235) [nonpub. opn.].)

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant appeals his resentencing. He initially argued remand was necessary for the trial court to clarify the three life terms imposed because the abstract of judgment, as written, could be construed as imposing terms of 45 years to life on each of the three indeterminate counts. The People argued (and defendant later agreed) that we may correct any alleged clerical ambiguity in the abstract of judgment by clarifying the trial court reimposed terms of 15 years to life on each of the three indeterminate counts, making remand unnecessary. Because we have identified an unauthorized sentence error as to the three counts stayed under section 654, we shall remand the matter for the trial court to select a full term for each of those counts before staying them under section 654. Upon remand, the trial court may correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the 15 years-to-life sentences imposed on each of the three indeterminate counts. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not relevant to the issue on appeal, and we do not recount them here. It suffices to say that in 2021 a jury found defendant guilty of 10 counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) and three counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of eight years for one of the lewd and lascivious act counts (count one), and then two years each (one-third the midterm) for the remaining lewd and lascivious act counts (counts two, three, five, seven, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen), with the sentences on counts three, five, and seven stayed under section 654 because the conduct alleged in each of those counts was duplicative of the three oral copulation or sexual penetration counts (counts four, six, and eight). For counts four, six, and eight, the court imposed consecutive terms of 15 years to life on each count. Defendant’s total aggregate sentence was an indeterminate term of 45 years to life, consecutive to a 20-year determinate term.