Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Matthew Curtis Hurst appealed from the judgment entered after he was resentenced on the sole conviction remaining from an earlier prosecution. A jury had originally convicted him of 23 counts: 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault involving sexual penetration of a child under 14, 10 counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object upon a child over 14, and three counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious or sleeping person. The jury also found true a special statute-of-limitations allegation. The original sentence included consecutive and concurrent indeterminate and determinate terms, fines and fees, and $100,000 in direct victim restitution for noneconomic losses.
In a December 27, 2024 decision in case C099850, a different panel of the Third District reversed counts I through X because they violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and reversed counts XI through XXII for insufficient evidence. That panel also struck the noneconomic-loss restitution award because the convictions supporting it had been reversed, and it remanded for a full resentencing. The present court took judicial notice of that unpublished opinion. Because the current appeal concerned only resentencing, the court did not recount the facts underlying the remaining conviction.
On May 13, 2025, the trial court imposed the middle term of six years on count 23, with the same credit awarded at the original sentencing plus additional credit for time served through resentencing. It also imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 conviction assessment. Hurst timely appealed. He later submitted a May 11, 2026 letter under People v. Fares asking the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment, including increasing actual custody credits from 1,033 to 1,591 days and total credits from 1,188 to 1,746 days. The trial court issued a corrected abstract containing the requested changes.
The Court’s Holding
Hurst’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief describing the procedural history and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record for arguable issues under People v. Wende. Counsel did not identify a specific appellate claim. Hurst was advised that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days after the opening brief was filed, but more than 30 days passed without a supplemental filing. The appeal therefore presented the court with the question whether its independent examination disclosed any arguable error warranting a disposition more favorable to Hurst.
The court stated that it had examined the entire record as Wende requires and found no arguable errors meeting that standard. It consequently affirmed the judgment rather than ordering another resentencing or granting other relief. The opinion did not identify a separate sentencing defect or resolve an independently briefed substantive challenge; its stated basis for affirmance was the absence of any arguable issue after the court’s record review.
The disposition was simply that the judgment was affirmed. Acting Presiding Justice Renner signed the opinion, and Justices Krause and Mesiwala concurred. The opinion did not order further custody-credit corrections or disturb the corrected abstract described in its procedural history.
Key Takeaways
- The Third District affirmed Hurst’s six-year sentence on the one conviction that remained after the earlier appeal reversed 22 other convictions.
- Appointed counsel proceeded under People v. Wende by requesting an independent record review rather than presenting a specific arguable appellate issue.
- Hurst received notice of his opportunity to submit a supplemental brief but did not file one within the allotted 30-day period.
- The court examined the entire record and found no arguable error that could lead to a disposition more favorable to Hurst.
- The superior court had already issued a corrected abstract of judgment incorporating the custody-credit and other corrections Hurst requested in his Fares letter.
Why It Matters
The decision concludes the appellate challenge to the resentencing that followed the substantial reversal of Hurst’s original convictions. It leaves intact the six-year middle-term sentence on count 23 and the fines and assessments imposed at resentencing, while the opinion’s account confirms that the requested abstract-of-judgment corrections had already been made in the superior court.
The ruling also illustrates the disposition of a California criminal appeal when appointed counsel finds no issue to raise under Wende. The Court of Appeal did not rely solely on counsel’s representation or on Hurst’s decision not to file a supplemental brief; it expressly stated that it conducted its own examination of the entire record before concluding that no arguable basis existed for a more favorable outcome.