Filed 7/2/26 P. v. Cleveland CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B342217
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA094844)
v.
DOMINGO CLEVELAND,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Domingo
Cleveland (defendant) of second degree robbery in 2015. The
trial court found true enhancement allegations regarding
defendant’s prior convictions. Prior to sentencing, defendant
asked the trial court to strike his prior “strike” convictions
(convictions for robbery in 1991 and 1996, and a 1986 juvenile
adjudication) pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The trial court declined and sentenced
defendant to 37 years to life in state prison: 25 years to life for
the robbery conviction pursuant to the Three Strikes Law, two
five-year enhancement terms pursuant to Penal Code section
667(a), and two one-year terms for prior prison term
enhancements pursuant to section 667.5(b).1
Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to strike his prior convictions.
This court affirmed but ordered certain corrections in defendant’s
abstract of judgment. (People v. Cleveland (Aug. 11, 2016,
B263518) [nonpub. opn.].)
In September 2020, the trial court struck defendant’s two
section 667.5(b) enhancements in habeas corpus proceedings,
which reduced defendant’s sentence to 35 years to life.
Defendant was not present or represented by counsel at the
hearing when this relief was granted. Two years later, the trial
court considered whether defendant qualified for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.75 (a statute invalidating most prior
prison term enhancements) and determined defendant was not
1
Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.
2
entitled to resentencing under that statute because it had already
stricken defendant’s prior prison term enhancements.
Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the
September 2020 hearing where the court struck his prior prison
term enhancements denied him his right to a full resentencing.
The court granted the motion and scheduled a resentencing
hearing. In advance of that hearing, defendant filed a brief
asking the court to strike his oldest strike prior pursuant to
Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497, and to strike his two five-year
enhancement terms. (Defendant’s submission did not include
any evidence regarding his behavior while in prison.) The People
filed a response asserting defendant had committed a number of
rule violations in prison over the preceding years.
At the resentencing hearing in October 2024, the court
stated it had no reason to believe, given all of defendant’s
circumstances, that he was outside the spirit of the Three Strikes
law or had rehabilitated in any meaningful way. The court said,
however, that if there were documentary evidence supporting
good behavior and rehabilitation, defendant could file another
motion. The court accordingly declined to strike any of
defendant’s prior “strikes,” but it did grant his request to strike
his two five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancements—
leaving him with a sentence of 25 years to life.
Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to
represent him. After examining the record, defendant’s attorney
found no arguable issues and filed an opening brief pursuant to
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
We then invited defendant to submit a supplemental brief
and he filed a one-paragraph brief. We confine our opinion, and
3
our review of the record, to that brief. (Delgadillo, 14 Cal.5th at
232.)
Defendant’s supplemental brief asserts the prosecutor
withheld exculpatory information and failed to disclose evidence
of defendant’s work history. Defendant attached the following
documents to his brief: a document entitled “Inmate Assignment
History,” which identifies programs defendant participated in
and work he performed both before and after the resentencing
hearing; annotated excerpts from his counsel’s Delgadillo brief; a
document entitled “Delgadillo Procedure”; and a certificate
declaring defendant the “Patient of the Month” in November
2025.
Because the trial court granted defendant relief on all but
his request to strike one or more of his prior strike convictions,
we construe defendant’s supplemental brief as an argument that
the court erred in denying his Romero request to reduce his Three
Strikes law sentence. The trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of
its discretion. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374; see
also People v. Rodriguez (2016) 1 Cal.5th 676, 685.) The trial
court was correct to find defendant had a thin to nonexistent
record of rehabilitation —plus rule violations in prison, there is
no support in the record for defendant’s assertion that the
prosecution “withheld” documents attached to his supplemental
brief (some of which post-date the October 2024 resentencing
hearing), and defendant’s history and prospects are not such that
we can say the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason in
declining to strike one or more of his prior “strike” convictions.
4
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
5