Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gerardo Martinez pleaded no contest to one count of petty theft or shoplifting with two or more prior convictions under Penal Code section 666.1, subdivision (a)(1). The charge arose from an incident in which he shoplifted $40 of merchandise from the Los Angeles Citadel Outlet Mall in violation of section 459.5. Martinez also admitted that he had suffered five qualifying prior convictions within the meaning of section 666.1, subdivision (a)(2). At the time of the offense, Martinez was on probation in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 25PDCF00276 and had an open case in Case No. 24CJCF04858. He stated that he understood his no contest plea constituted a violation of his probation.
The trial court sentenced Martinez to eight months in prison, calculated as one-third of the middle term, in the current case. That term was ordered to be served consecutively to an eight-year term imposed in Case No. 24CJCF04858 and concurrently with a two-year term imposed in Case No. 25PDCF00276. Martinez timely appealed the judgment and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeal appointed counsel for him. After reviewing the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking the court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On August 19, 2026, the court advised Martinez that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he wished the court to consider, but no response was received.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal conducted the independent review requested by appointed counsel. The court stated that it had examined the entire record and was satisfied that no arguable issues existed. It also concluded that Martinez’s counsel had fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. In support of that conclusion, the court cited Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284, and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. The appellate review proceeded through the Wende procedure after counsel identified no issues to brief.
The court’s disposition was direct: “The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.” The judgment therefore remained in place, including the eight-month prison term and the trial court’s directions concerning consecutive and concurrent service with the terms in the other cases. The opinion was filed October 12, 2026, by Division Five of the Second Appellate District. Justice Moor authored the opinion, with Presiding Justice Hoffstadt and Justice Kim, D., concurring. The opinion was designated not to be published in the official reports.
Key Takeaways
- A no contest plea to petty theft or shoplifting with qualifying prior convictions resulted in an eight-month prison sentence for Martinez.
- The eight-month term was consecutive to an eight-year sentence in one case and concurrent with a two-year sentence in another.
- The trial court granted Martinez’s request for a certificate of probable cause, and he timely appealed the judgment.
- After appointed counsel sought Wende review, the Court of Appeal examined the entire record and found no arguable issues.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and determined that appointed counsel had fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves Martinez’s appeal through an independent-record review rather than through consideration of a separately briefed claim of error. The court’s conclusion addressed both the absence of arguable appellate issues and counsel’s fulfillment of her Wende responsibilities. Martinez had an opportunity to submit his own contentions after the court’s August 19, 2026 notice, but the opinion states that no response was received.
The practical result is that the superior court’s judgment, including its sentencing structure, remains unchanged. The opinion does not announce a new sentencing rule or resolve a disputed legal issue; it records the appellate court’s review of this case and its affirmance of the judgment.