People v. Mendes CA3

Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Mendes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102793

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18CF03572, 20CF00924, 20CF05871, v. 23CF02728)

ADAM ROSS MENDES,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the conviction of defendant Adam Ross Mendes but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in case Nos. 18CF03572, 20CF00924, and 20CF05871 (case Nos. 572, 924, and 871). (People v. Mendes (Jun. 23, 2022, C093550) [nonpub. opn.] (Mendes I).) Defendant then appealed after resentencing, and we again vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing after concluding defendant’s absence at his resentencing hearing constituted prejudicial error. (People v. Mendes (Mar. 15, 2024, C097978) [nonpub. opn.] (Mendes II).)1

1 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s prior opinions in Mendes I and Mendes II. (Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)

1

While awaiting resentencing in case Nos. 572, 924, 871, defendant pled no contest to violating section 2101, subdivision (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Code in case No. 23CF02728 (case No. 728). The trial court simultaneously sentenced defendant in all four cases. Defendant now appeals after the most recent resentencing. Appointed counsel asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we have found an issue with the calculation of credits. We remand for the trial court to recalculate defendant’s actual time in custody and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In case No. 572, defendant pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)2; in case No. 924, defendant pled guilty to failure to appear (§ 1320.5); and in case No. 871, defendant pled no contest to resisting an executive officer (§ 69, subd. (a)). (Mendes II, supra, C097978.) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate seven year prison term. (Ibid.) On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing in light of amendments to section 1170. (Ibid.) Following remand and resentencing, defendant again appealed, and this court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for further resentencing. (Ibid.) While awaiting resentencing on those three cases, the People charged defendant in case No. 728 with making a false statement to obtain unemployment benefits. (Unemp. Ins. Code, § 2101, subd. (a).) Defendant pled no contest to the charge in exchange for an eight month prison term. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of five years eight months, as follows: three years (the middle term) for case No. 572, and eight months (one-third the middle term) consecutive each for the counts in case Nos. 924, 871, and 728, plus eight months consecutive for an unrelated case that is not at issue in this appeal.