People v. Pineda CA5

California Court of Appeal Mar 9, 2022 No. F081340Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing, finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a long-final conviction under Penal Code sections 1016.8 and 1170, subdivision (d).

Issues

Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to resentence the defendant under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d).
Whether Penal Code section 1016.8 provides a substantive right to challenge long-final plea agreements.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court held it no longer had jurisdiction to resentence appellant under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), because that jurisdiction expired 120 days after he was originally sentenced in 1999.”

“the statute does not provide a substantive right to challenge long final plea agreements and does not confer any jurisdiction in this Court by which it can consider [appellant’s] ‘request.’”

Filed 3/9/22 P. v. Pineda CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081340 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. CF97603147) v.

SERGIO ZARATE PINEDA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge. Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 1999, appellant Sergio Zarate Pineda1 pleaded no contest in two different cases to second degree murder and narcotics offenses pursuant to a negotiated disposition; he was sentenced to 15 years to life. He did not file appeals from his pleas or the sentence. In 2020, he filed a petition for resentencing in both cases pursuant to Penal Code2 sections 1016.8 and 1170, subdivision (d), and claimed he was not advised and did not understand his constitutional rights or that he would receive a life sentence. The superior court denied the petition. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 24, 1997, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County case No. CF97603147-0, charging appellant with count 1, the murder of Jesus Palomino on December 22, 1991 (§ 187), with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A preliminary hearing was conducted, and appellant was held to answer. The record reflects that appellant also had a separate matter pending against him, in case no. No. CF98603146-2, where he was charged with multiple narcotics offenses. Plea Hearing On October 21, 1999, the court convened a hearing for negotiated dispositions in two pending cases. Appellant was present with counsel and an interpreter.

1Appellant’s name appears in various ways throughout the record. The information and notice of appeal use the name “Sergio Zarate Pineda.” We will do the same. 2 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

People v. Pineda CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief