People v. Mendoza CA5

── People v. Mendoza CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Mendoza CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089239 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. VCF294661A & v. VCF237778A) GUSTAVO JESUS MENDOZA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge. Hilda Scheib, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs and Caely E. Fallini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.  INTRODUCTION In 2015, appellant Gustavo Jesus Mendoza was sentenced to prison for an aggregate determinate term of 31 years following his convictions for attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 211)1; conspiracy to commit robbery (§ 182); illegal possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); and masked criminal firearm possession in public (§ 25300, subd. (a)). The jury found true firearm and gang enhancements. In 2018, this court affirmed appellant’s judgment but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing for the trial court to determine whether to exercise its discretion to strike a firearm enhancement. (People v. Mendoza (Jan. 10, 2018, F071822) [nonpub. opn.].) In May 2018, appellant was resentenced, and the trial court declined to exercise its discretion to strike appellant’s firearm enhancement. In 2019, we issued another opinion in which we rejected appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike his firearm enhancement. However, we again remanded for resentencing considering a then newly enacted law that gave discretion regarding appellant’s prior serious felony conviction. (People v. Mendoza (Aug. 8, 2019, F077578) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2020, the trial court declined to strike appellant’s five-year prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). In 2021, we issued a third opinion, affirming appellant’s judgment. (People v. Mendoza (June 9, 2021, F080766) [nonpub. opn.].) In December 2024, appellant filed a petition in the superior court that is the subject of this appeal. Appellant’s petition was filed under the authority of section 1171, and it invited the court to review his record and modify his sentence or conviction. Appellant requested the appointment of legal counsel. At the time he filed this petition in December 2024, section 1171 had not yet become operative. Section 1171 was enacted by Assembly Bill No. 2483 (Stats. 2024, 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2. ch. 964, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2025). This is a procedural statute that governs the handling of postconviction proceedings authorized by separate ameliorative laws, such as sections 1172.6 or 1172.75. It cre