People v. Pineda CA1/2

── People v. Pineda CA1/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 P. v. Pineda CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A174475 v. JAIME PINEDA, (Contra Costa County Superior Court Defendant and Appellant. No. 05-201610-3) In the summer of 2018, defendant Jaime Pineda was 33 years old and living with then 11-year-old Jane Doe. Pineda initiated a sexual relationship with Doe, a relationship that continued for some 18 months until it was discovered and Pineda was arrested. A jury later convicted Pineda of 10 sex offenses and he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 45 years to life plus a consecutive determinate term of 28 years in prison, a sentence that included the upper term on three of the counts of conviction. Pineda appealed. And while his appeal was pending, the law was changed to make the middle term the presumptive sentence unless aggravating factors in support of an upper term are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In October 2023, we affirmed Pineda’s conviction, concluding that any error in imposing the upper terms was harmless and rejecting his other claims of error. 1  Our Supreme Court granted review, and in December 2024, transferred the cause to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the case in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch), which clarified the standard of prejudice to be applied in cases where upper term sentences were imposed based on facts not found by a jury. Upon reconsideration, we concluded that the alleged error in imposing the upper terms was not harmless under the standard set forth in Lynch, and accordingly we vacated Pineda’s sentence and remanded for the trial court to conduct a full resentencing. That resentencing took place in September 2025. The trial court sentenced Pineda to the midterm on each of his counts of conviction, resulting in a sentence of an indeterminate term of 45 years to life, plus a consecutive determinate term of 22 years. Pineda again appealed. His court-appointed counsel has asked us to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel advised Pineda of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no meritorious issues. We thus affirm. BACKGROUND The factual background regarding Pineda’s convictions is set forth in detail in our previous opinion, People v. Pineda (Jan. 30, 2025, A163880) [nonpub. opn] (Pineda).) To briefly summarize, in the summer of 2018, Pineda was 33 years old and a close friend of Jane Doe’s father. (Pineda, supra, A163880.) Doe was 11 years old, and was living “with her father, mother, and younger brother in a studio in Richmond. The studio had been converted from a garage and was attached to the main house, where [Pineda], 2 his mother, sisters, niece, and cousins lived. A door connected the living room in the studio to the k