People v. Nelson CA3

Filed 2/19/26 P. v. Nelson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C103315

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62188755A)

v.

DAVID PATRICK NELSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Patrick Nelson appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal 1 Code section 1172.1 request for resentencing. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to him. Defendant filed a supplemental brief acknowledging that this court would not be able to provide him any relief but nonetheless

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

raising issues with the 2023 proceedings in Placer County. These arguments are not related to the trial court’s 2025 order appealed from and thus are not cognizable in this appeal. Accordingly, we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. The 2023 Proceedings In July 2023, defendant resolved two pending cases through a plea agreement with a negotiated disposition for an aggregate prison term of 10 years. Specifically, in Placer County case No. 62-186940B, defendant pled no contest to vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)) and admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d)). In Placer County case No. 62-188755A, defendant pled no contest to arson of the property of another (§ 451, subd. (d)) and burglary (§ 459). Defendant also admitted a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and that the offenses were committed while he was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance in case No. 62-186940B (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). The balance of the charges were dismissed in light of the plea agreement. The trial court sentenced defendant the same day to the agreed upon 10-year aggregate term. It first reiterated defendant’s previous sentence in Yolo County case No. CR2022-39521 (the Yolo County case), of four years (the low term of two years doubled because of the prior strike), which would serve as the principal term. In Placer County case No. 62-186940B, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months (one-third the midterm doubled) consecutive for the vandalism. In Placer County case No. 62- 188755A, the court sentenced defendant to 16 months (one-third the midterm doubled) consecutive for the arson plus 16 months (one-third the midterm doubled) consecutive for the burglary plus two years consecutive for the out on bail enhancement. The trial court noted defendant had previously been awarded custody credits in the Yolo County case, but did not delineate those credits or award any additional credits for the time defendant may have already served in that matter. In Placer County case No. 62-