Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Manuel Cisneros resolved two Fresno County Superior Court prosecutions through a negotiated disposition. In case No. F24908419, the December 20, 2024 complaint charged grand theft and two counts of petty theft with prior convictions arising on or about December 18, 2024. In case No. F25905969, the August 22, 2025 complaint charged second degree commercial burglary of a hair salon and a restaurant on or about November 16, 2024. The complaints also alleged circumstances in aggravation. Cisneros ultimately pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property in the first case and second degree commercial burglary in the second.
On September 11, 2025, the parties presented an agreement calling for an aggregate stipulated term of two years, eight months and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. Count 1 in case No. F24908419 was amended from grand theft to receiving stolen property. The plea forms stated that Cisneros would receive eight months in that case, consecutive to the sentence in case No. F25905969. A Harvey waiver applied to the dismissed second count in case No. F25905969, and the stipulated factual basis in the receiving-stolen-property case was "receiving stolen property with the intent to temporarily deprive."
The trial court confirmed that Cisneros had reviewed his rights with counsel, understood the charges and consequences, and wished to waive his rights. On October 10, 2025, it imposed two years in case No. F25905969 and a consecutive eight-month term in case No. F24908419. Cisneros received 297 days of actual custody credit and 296 days of conduct or work-time credit, totaling 593 days. The court also imposed a $600 restitution fine, other fees and assessments, and victim restitution. Cisneros did not request a certificate of probable cause, but filed a notice of appeal asserting that the oral pronouncement did not match the minute order concerning his release date.
The Court’s Holding
Appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende stating that she could identify no arguable issues for reversal and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record independently. Counsel declared that she advised Cisneros of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. The court also invited additional briefing by letter dated June 23, 2026. Cisneros did not submit a supplemental brief, and the time to do so elapsed.
After its independent review, the court found that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues existed. It therefore affirmed both judgments. The opinion did not identify a sentencing error or alter the negotiated custody term, credits, restitution obligations, or dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations.
A footnote addressed the appeal's reference to a discrepancy involving Cisneros's release date. The court called that reference unclear and stated that the sentencing minute orders in both cases conformed to the oral pronouncement and reflected the aggregate sentence of two years, eight months. The disposition was succinct: "The judgments are affirmed."
Key Takeaways
- Independent review under People v. Wende resulted in a finding that the record presented no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments in both Fresno County cases without changing the negotiated aggregate sentence of two years, eight months.
- Cisneros received 593 days of presentence custody credit, consisting of 297 actual days and 296 conduct or work-time days.
- The court stated that both sentencing minute orders conformed to the oral pronouncement, notwithstanding the unclear release-date reference in the notice of appeal.
- Cisneros did not file a supplemental brief after counsel's advisement and the court's June 23, 2026 invitation for additional briefing.
Why It Matters
The decision concludes Cisneros's appeal through the independent-review procedure used when appointed appellate counsel cannot identify an arguable basis for reversal. The court considered the record after providing an opportunity for supplemental briefing and affirmed rather than ordering further proceedings.
The opinion also records the terms of the negotiated resolution and directly addresses the only discrepancy described in the notice of appeal. Its footnote confirms that the written sentencing minutes and oral pronouncement reflected the same aggregate term, while the disposition leaves both judgments intact.