Filed 11/4/26 P. v. Cisneros 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
F090771
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. F24908419,
v. F25905969)
JOSE MANUEL CISNEROS,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT *
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Geoffrey
Wilson, Judge.
Sara E. Coppin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Sandhu, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Jose Manuel Cisneros entered into a negotiated disposition to resolve
two cases. In Fresno County Superior Court case No. F24908419 (case No. F24908419)
he pled no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 1 § 496, subd. (a); count 1),
and in Fresno County Superior Court case No. F25905969 (case No. F25905969) he pled
no contest to second degree commercial burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b); count 1). He
was sentenced to a stipulated term of two years, eight months in county jail (§ 1170,
subd. (h)) and was credited with 593 days of presentence custody credits.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has been unable to identify any arguable issues for
reversal on appeal and asking us to independently review the record for error. Defendant
was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of
the Wende brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and defendant has not filed a
supplemental brief.
Having conducted an independent review of the record, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
I. Complaints
On December 20, 2024, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant in
case No. F24908419 with grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count 1), and two counts of petty
theft with prior convictions (§ 666.1, subd. (a)(1); counts 2 and 3), all arising on or about
December 18, 2024. Circumstances in aggravation were alleged pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) and (b)(3).
On August 22, 2025, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant in
case No. F25905969 with second degree commercial burglary of a hair salon on or about
November 16, 2024 (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b); count 1), and second degree commercial
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2.
burglary of a restaurant on November 16, 2024 (§§ 459, 460, subd. (b); count 2).
Circumstances in aggravation were alleged pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
4.421(b)(3) and (b)(4).
II. No Contest Pleas
The parties appeared on September 11, 2025, and defense counsel indicated
defendant would be entering a no contest plea to an amended count 1 in case No.
F24908419 and to count 1 in case No. F25905969 for an aggregate stipulated term of two
years, eight months, with the remaining counts and allegations to be dismissed. Count 1
in case No. F24908419 was amended by interlineation from a violation of section 487,
subdivision (a) to a violation of section 496, subdivision (a).
The court confirmed that defendant initialed and signed a felony advisement of
rights, waiver, and plea form in each case. The form in case No. F25905969 indicated
defendant’s understanding that he would plead no contest to count 1 and the remaining
count would be dismissed. A Harvey 2 waiver would apply to count 2. Defendant would
be sentenced to an aggregate term of two years, eight months.
The form in case No. F24908419 indicated defendant’s understanding that he
would plead no contest to an amended count 1, with a stipulated sentence of eight
months, to run consecutive to his sentence in case No. F25905969, for an aggregate
sentence of two years, eight months. The remaining counts would be dismissed. The
factual basis of the plea was “receiving stolen property [with] intent to temporarily
deprive.” (Capitalization omitted.)
In both forms, defendant initialed paragraphs indicating the plea was entered
freely and voluntarily, with understanding of the charges and possible defenses, and
following an opportunity to speak with his attorney regarding the case, his defenses, his
constitutional and statutory rights, and the consequences of the plea. He initialed
2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
3.
additional paragraphs acknowledging the consequences of a guilty plea, his constitutional
rights, and his waiver of those rights.
The court confirmed that defendant had reviewed his rights with his attorney,
understood them, and wished to give them up to take advantage of the plea agreement.
The court confirmed defendant understood the consequences of his plea, including
immigration consequences, consequences to any form of then-current term of supervised
release, firearm relinquishment requirements, and the effect the convictions may have on
sentencing in future cases. The court confirmed defendant’s understanding that he could
be sentenced to a maximum three-year term in each case. He also confirmed defendant
understood he would be required to pay restitution, and dismissed counts could be
considered in setting the amount of restitution.
Defendant then entered his plea of no contest to count 1 in case No. F25905969
and the amended count 1 in case No. F24908419. As to case No. F25905969, defense
counsel cited People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110 when queried regarding the factual
basis for the plea. As to case No. F24908419, the parties stipulated that the factual basis
for the plea was “receiving stolen property with the intent to temporarily deprive.” The
court adopted the findings and orders set forth in the change of plea forms and the
remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.
III. Sentencing
On October 10, 2025, the court sentenced defendant pursuant to the agreement to a
term of two years in case No. F25905969, and one-third of the middle-term sentence of
two years in case No. F24908419, to be served consecutively, for an additional eight
months in local custody. Defendant was awarded 297 days actual credit and 296 days of
conduct or work time credit, for a total of 593 days custody credit. He was ordered to
pay a restitution fine of $600, as well as other fees and assessments, and to make
restitution to the victims named in the complaint. Defendant’s mandatory supervision in
a separate case was “terminated as unsuccessful with credit for time served.”
4.
IV. Notice of Appeal
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause. Defendant, proceeding
in propria persona, filed a notice of appeal, stating the oral pronouncement of judgment
“did not match” the minute order “in w[h]ich it conflicts with [his] release date.” 3
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief
included counsel’s declaration that she advised defendant of his right to file a
supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of the Wende brief’s filing. By letter
dated June 23, 2026, we invited defendant to submit additional briefing. He has not done
so, and the time for doing so has elapsed.
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or
legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
3 This reference is unclear. The sentencing minute orders in both cases conform to
the oral pronouncement of judgment and reflect the aggregate sentence of two years,
eight months.
5.