People v. Corrales CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 6, 2025 No. F083684AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant is entitled to resentencing because the record does not clearly indicate the trial court would have imposed the same aggravated sentence had it been aware of the limitations on its discretion under Senate Bill 567. The court also held that the appeal is not moot because the defendant may still be subject to parole or state supervision, for which a reduced sentence could provide meaningful relief.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing under Senate Bill 567 in light of People v. Lynch.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot due to the defendant's release from prison custody.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In light of Lynch, we now hold that appellant is entitled to resentencing; the record does not “clearly indicate” the trial court would have imposed the same aggravated sentence had it been aware of Senate Bill 567’s presumption against the upper term.”

“Because the record does not establish that appellant has been discharged from all forms of state supervision, and because a resentencing could provide meaningful relief, we conclude the appeal is not moot.”

“The sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded for resentencing in conformity with section 1170, subdivision (b), as amended by Senate Bill 567.”

Filed 8/6/25 P. v. Corrales CA5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, F083684 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21906681) v.

DANIEL ORTEGA CORRALES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Houry A. Sanderson, Judge. Robert Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Kari Mueller, and Joseph Penney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2021, a jury convicted appellant Daniel Ortega Corrales of one count of possession or control of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a);1 count 1). In addition, he was convicted of nine financial crimes involving identity theft and forgery concerning four different victims. The convictions for identity thefts were in counts 2 and 6 under section 530.5, subdivision (a), and in counts 5, 8 and 9 under section 530.5, subdivision (c)(1). The forgery convictions occurred in count 3 under section 475, subdivision (a), and in count 4 under section 470, subdivision (d).2 For the possession of child pornography, appellant received an aggravated prison term of three years. In both counts 2 and 6 (identity theft involving different victims), he was sentenced to prison for a consecutive eight months (each was one-third of the subordinate middle term). Concurrent subordinate terms were imposed for the forgery convictions in counts 3 and 4. Appellant’s total prison sentence was four years four months.3 In 2022, this court affirmed appellant’s judgment in a nonpublished opinion. We held that appellant’s upper term sentence for the child pornography was not imposed in compliance with Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567). However, we concluded that the error was harmless. (People v. Corrales (Dec. 15, 2022, F083684) [nonpub. opn.].) On June 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court directed us to vacate that prior opinion and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730

People v. Corrales CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief