Filed 7/23/26 P. v. Carrillo CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H053475
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No.: SS082394A)
v.
TIMOTHY RALPH CARRILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Timothy Ralph Carrillo appeals from the trial court’s order
resentencing him pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 For the reasons stated below,
we affirm the order.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
Between 2006 and 2008, Carrillo made door to door calls in the Seaside and
Monterey areas, where he solicited his services for home improvement. After the
victims, several of whom were elderly, agreed to use his services, Carrillo provided them
with contracts and estimates, and asked them to pay him certain sums of money to begin
his work. Carrillo subsequently did not perform any work within the time he had
promised, and several of the victims later discovered that he did not have a contractor’s
license and had lied about placing orders for supplies and materials.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 As the underlying facts are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal, we only
summarize the facts briefly, which are derived from the probation report and quoted by
Carrillo in his opening brief.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Conviction and Sentence
On August 18, 2011, a jury convicted Carrillo of 24 separate counts3, including
three counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); counts 1, 3, and 5); four counts of theft from
an elder or dependent person (§ 368, subd. (d); counts 7, 10, 13, and 16); five counts of
first degree burglary (§ 459; counts 8, 11, 14, 17, and 21); six counts of embezzlement of
over $950 (§ § 508, 487, subd. (a); counts 9, 12, 15, and 18–20); and six misdemeanor
counts of contracting without a license (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7028, subd. (a); counts 23–
28). In a separate bench trial, the trial court also found true that Carrillo had a prior
conviction for residential burglary (§ 459), which constituted a prior strike offense
(§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and a serious felony within the meaning of section 667,
subdivision (a), and Carrillo had served two prior prison terms for two prior felony
convictions pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On October 12, 2011, the trial court denied Carrillo’s Romero4 motion to strike his
strike prior offense and sentenced Carrillo to an aggregate sentence of 35 years in prison,
consisting of the following: (1) 12 years in prison (the upper term of six years, doubled
for the strike) for first degree burglary on count 8, which was designated as the principal
term (§ 459; count 8); (2) four consecutive terms of one year and four months in prison
(one third the middle term of two years, doubled for the strike) for grand theft (§ 487,
subd. (a); counts 1, 3, and 5) and one count of embezzlement (§ § 508, 487, subd. (a);
count 19); (3) four consecutive terms of 2 years and eight months in prison (one third the
middle term of five years, doubled for the strike) for the remaining four counts of first
3 Carrillo was charged with 28 counts. After the People rested at trial, the court
granted Carrillo’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on count 22, a charge of
misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484). Counts 2, 4, and 6, which were for charges of diversion
of construction funds in connection with the grand theft charges in counts 1, 3, and 5,
were not submitted to the jury, and were subsequently dismissed.
4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2
degree burglary (§ 459; counts 11, 14, 17, and 21); and (4) six concurrent terms of 180
days in county jail for the misdemeanor counts of contracting without a license (Bus. &
Prof. Code, § 7028, subd. (a); counts 23–28). The court also imposed and stayed,
pursuant to section 654, four terms of four years in prison (the upper term) for theft from
an elder or dependent person (§ 368, subd. (d); counts 7, 10, 13, and 16), and five terms
of three years in prison (the upper term) for the five remaining counts of embezzlement
over $950 (§ § 508, 487, subd. (a); counts 9, 12, 15, 18, and 20). The court additionally
sentenced Carrillo to consecutive terms of five years in prison for his prior serious felony
enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two years in prison for his two prior convictions that
resulted in prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Finally, the trial court ordered that Carrillo
serve his 35-year term consecutive to a 25-year prison sentence he was currently serving
in Texas on unrelated charges.
Carrillo appealed, and in 2014, a different panel of this court affirmed the
judgment. (People v. Carrillo (January 9, 2014, H037487) [nonpub. opn.] )
B. Resentencing Petition and Appeal
In early 2023, following the passage of Senate Bill No. 136 (Senate Bill 136) and
Senate Bill No. 438 (Senate Bill 438)5, the trial court scheduled the matter for a hearing
to resentence Carrillo. Carrillo was not personally present for the hearing, but the trial
5 Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 136 (2019–2020
Reg. Sess.), which amended section 667.5, subdivision (b) to limit prior prison term
enhancements to sexually violent offenses only. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1.) The
Legislature subsequently passed Senate Bill 483, which made this change retroactive by
adding section 1171.1 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3), which was later renumbered as section
1172.75. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12.) Under section 1172.75, “[a]ny sentence
enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 667.5,” except for enhancements for certain sexually violent offenses, “is legally
invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Once the trial court has confirmed that a defendant’s
current judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement that is now legally invalid,
the trial court “shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (§ 1172.75,
subd. (c).)
3
court accepted the stipulation of Carrillo’s appointed counsel and the People to strike the
two section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements, and reduce Carrillo’s total sentence to
33 years. On appeal, Carrillo argued, and the Attorney General conceded, that the trial
court erred in not conducting a full resentencing on all counts, at which he had the right
to be present. (People v. Carrillo (September 17, 2024, H051143, H051743) [nonpub.
op.]6 ) A different panel of this court agreed, and reversed and remanded with directions
for the trial court to conduct a full resentencing in accordance with section 1172.75.
(People v. Carrillo, supra, H051143 and H051743.)
C. Resentencing Proceedings on Remand
Following remand to the trial court, Carrillo’s counsel submitted a brief in support
of resentencing Carillo to a lower sentence pursuant to section 1172.75. In his briefing,
counsel requested that the court resentence Carrillo to the lower term on count 8, based
on changes to section 1170, subdivision (b) regarding imposition of an upper term
sentence. Counsel further requested that due to modifications to section 654 regarding
which counts could be stayed, count 9 should be designated as the principal term, with
the remaining counts to all be served concurrently with the sentence on count 9. Counsel
additionally asked that the court reconsider Carrillo’s previous Romero motion to strike
his strike prior offense, particularly given that the prior offense was over 20 years old and
not a violent offense. Counsel further noted that pursuant to the current version of
section 1385, the trial court should exercise its discretion to strike the section 667,
subdivision (a) prior violent felony enhancement based on the presence of numerous
mitigating circumstances, including but not limited to Carrillo’s mental illness and
childhood trauma. The People did not file a response or submit any briefing regarding
resentencing.
6 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our opinion in this appeal. (Evid.
Code, § 452, subd. (d)(1).)
4
On July 1, 2025, the parties appeared for Carrillo’s resentencing hearing. At the
outset of the hearing, the trial court denied Carrillo’s renewed Romero motion, based on
Carrillo’s substantial criminal history and convictions for numerous felony and
misdemeanor offenses between 1978 and 2007, which included the offense in Texas
which he was serving time for when he committed the offenses at issue, his poor
performance on probation and parole, and the significant impact of his actions on
multiple victims. Carrillo’s counsel subsequently argued that Carrillo’s behavior in
prison demonstrated minimal violence and no risk of him committing any violent or
serious offenses. Therefore, based on changes to sentencing law, counsel contended
there was no basis to resentence Carrillo to the upper term, as no aggravating factors had
been found true by a jury as required under section 1170, subdivision (b). Counsel also
asserted that the violent felony enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a),
should be dismissed because its imposition resulted in a sentence of over 20 years.
Finally, counsel again requested that the trial court designate count 9 as the principal
term, resentence Carrillo to the lower term of 16 months on that count and either stay or
run the remaining terms concurrent to count 9.
In response, the People acknowledged that there were no aggravating factors
admitted or proved to the jury to justify imposition of an upper term on count 8, but
argued that a middle term would be the appropriate sentence. However, the People
contended that apart from this modification, the remainder of the sentence should remain
as previously imposed, based on the similar nature of the offenses, Carrillo’s substantial
criminal history, “the sheer number of victims, and the extent of loss in the current case.”
After hearing argument, the trial court noted that it had never seen a defendant’s
prison file for “that long of a period with so few certificates, so few grown[-]ups, so
few—I’ve looked at every education class he attended, the ones he refused to go to, I—I
don’t think I’ve ever seen a prisoner who’s done so little to improve himself to get ready
to get out of custody over this period of time ever. So—I mean, it’s—it’s amazing how
5
few certificates he has for any programs while in custody.” The trial court ultimately
ruled that it would still designate count 8 for first degree burglary as the principal term
because it believed that charge “clearly most identifies the defendant’s conduct and
manner of the criminal enterprise he played and the integral role in by entering the
sanctity of a person’s home, maintaining a position of trust, and working on elderly
victims’ vulnerabilities to perpetrate fraud.” The trial court resentenced Carrillo on count
8 to the middle term of four years, doubled to eight years for the prior strike. The court
also reduced the terms on all stayed counts from upper terms to middle terms, based on
the lack of aggravating factors, but did not reduce the terms on the remaining counts.
The trial court indicated that consecutive sentences remained appropriate based on the
victims being elderly, the number of victims, and the amount of loss suffered. After
confirming its prior order striking the two-year sentence for Carrillo’s now-invalid prison
priors, the trial court resentenced Carrillo to an aggregate sentence of 29 years in prison,
to be served consecutively with his Texas prison sentence.
On July 15, 2025, Carrillo filed a timely notice of appeal. Appointed counsel filed
an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), which states the case and the facts but
raises no specific issues, and requested that the court conduct an independent review of
the record on appeal. This court treated the brief as filed under Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th 216, and People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano).7 On March 6,
7 Wende review is only available in a first appeal of right. (Serrano, supra, 211
Cal.App.4th at p. 503; Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 223.) Because Carrillo’s appeal
is from an order after judgment modifying his sentence, and not a first appeal of right, he
is not entitled to Wende review. (Ibid.) We therefore proceed with this appeal under the
standard set forth in Serrano, which provides that “[i]n all future criminal appeals arising
from proceedings other than the first appeal of right, where appointed counsel finds no
arguable issues … counsel should (1) inform the court he or she has found no arguable
issues to be pursued on appeal and (2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and the
law … Upon receipt of the brief from counsel, the court will inform defendant of his right
to file a supplemental brief. The court will then either retain the appeal or dismiss it on
6
2026, this court notified Carrillo of his right pursuant to Serrano and Delgadillo to file a
supplemental brief on his own behalf within 30 days, and that failure to do so would
result in the dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp.
231–232; Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503.) On March 27, 2026, Carrillo filed
a supplemental statement.
III. DISCUSSION
Carrillo argues that the trial court did not fully take into account his youth and
childhood trauma, and its effect on his mental state at the time of the offenses, in
determining whether his sentence should be further reduced. He specifically notes that
there were mental health records regarding his mental state, but he is unsure why these
records were never produced or given to the trial court for its consideration.
An issue is arguable on appeal if it has a reasonable potential for success, and, if
resolved favorably for the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification
of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.) Based on our
independent review of the record, Carrillo does not raise any arguable issues on appeal.
As noted above, the record reflects that Carrillo’s counsel raised the issue of his youth
and childhood trauma in his brief in support of resentencing. Carrillo’s counsel also
discussed his current mental health status and participation in programming, and Carrillo
briefly testified about his childhood trauma, including frequently moving and sleeping in
many different unsafe places. While the trial court did not mention Carrillo’s mental
health or childhood trauma in its final decision, “we presume that the trial court acted to
achieve legitimate sentencing objectives. [Citation.] The burden is on the party
challenging the sentencing decision to show that the court abused its discretion.
[Citation.] We may not presume error from a silent record. [Citation.] ‘Unless the
our own motion.” (Serrano, supra, at p. 503.) Even when we retain the appeal upon the
defendant’s filing of a supplemental brief, we reach only the issues raised.
7
record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered
all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules’ ” (People v. Knowles (2024) 105
Cal.App.5th 757, 765.) To the extent Carrillo claims that the trial court should have
considered other documentation regarding his mental health, he acknowledges that these
documents were never provided to the court as part of his resentencing proceedings.
Therefore, as Carrillo does not affirmatively demonstrate error, we find no basis to
conclude the trial court failed to consider Carrillo’s mental health and childhood trauma
in making its final resentencing decision.
As Carrillo raises no arguable issues in his supplemental briefing and based on our
independent review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s resentencing order.
IV. DISPOSITION
The trial court’s resentencing order pursuant to section 1172.75 is affirmed.
8
___________________________________
Wilson, J.
WE CONCUR:
__________________________________________
Grover, Acting P. J.
__________________________________________
Lie, J.
People v. Carrillo
H053475