People v. Ximenez CA3

Filed 10/20/25 P. v. Ximenez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102043

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 03F10123)

v.

CHRISTOPHER XIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher Ximenez appeals from his resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 Appellate counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

During the pendency of this appeal defendant was paroled. In the declaration attached to defendant’s brief, appellate counsel indicated he did not have defendant’s new address so he had not advised defendant that he was filing a Wende brief or that defendant had a right to file a supplemental brief. This court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as abandoned. Counsel responded with a letter stating, “Having consulted with [defendant], we have decided not to respond and will submit the matter on the record before the court.” We construe counsel’s letter as indicating counsel advised defendant of the filing of the Wende brief and defendant’s right to file a supplemental brief and that defendant has elected not to do so. Although this is not defendant’s first appeal as of right, we exercise our discretion to independently review the record. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233, fn. 6 (Delgadillo).) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2004, a jury found defendant guilty of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)), and making criminal threats (§ 422). As to the assault with a deadly weapon, the jury found true a personal use of a deadly weapon enhancement allegation. The jury also found several aggravating circumstance allegations true. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found defendant had a prior conviction that qualified as both a strike (§§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 28 years in prison, which included an upper term of eight years for the kidnapping conviction, doubled to 16 years under the “Three Strikes” law, five years for the prior serious felony enhancement, and one year for the prison prior term enhancement. The trial court awarded defendant 585 days of custody credits.