People v. White CA3

Filed 9/29/25 P. v. White CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Calaveras) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102514

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22F8389)

v.

JESSIE TAYLOR WHITE,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is defendant Jessie1 Taylor White’s second appeal in this case. In his first appeal, we reversed four of his 16 felony convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for possible retrial on the reversed counts. We affirmed the remaining 12 convictions. (People v. White (Dec. 22, 2023, C096898) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the prosecution elected not to retry the reversed counts. The trial court resentenced

1 Defendant’s first name appears as both “Jessie” and “Jesse” in the record. We use defendant’s name as it appears on the amended abstract of judgment.

1

defendant on the remaining counts to an aggregate term of 25 years plus 100 years to life, consecutive. Defendant appeals that sentence. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, raising claims challenging the previously affirmed convictions and claiming he should be resentenced. We have reviewed the record and briefing as required by Wende and find no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm. We have, however, found the second amended determinate abstract of judgment is missing an attachment page that details convictions and sentences imposed on counts XIII through XVI. This omission requires correction. We direct the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2022, a jury found defendant guilty of three counts of forcible rape (counts I- III); one count of rape by threat of future retaliation (count IV); two counts of forcible sodomy (counts V & VI); one count of mayhem (count VII) with a true finding on a deadly weapon enhancement; one count of dissuading a witness (count VIII); one count of making criminal threats (count IX); one count of false imprisonment (count X); one count of arranging a meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (count XI); one count of meeting with a minor for lewd purposes (count XII); one count of contact with a minor for a sexual offense (count XIII); and three counts of statutory rape (counts XIV-XVI). The jury also found several aggravating sentencing factors true. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated that he sustained a 2013 prior conviction for committing lewd and lascivious acts against a child under the age of 14 years. The trial court accepted the admission and found the prior conviction allegation