Filed 7/27/26 P. v. Corona-Aguirre 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, H053716
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 25CR002829)
v.
NEFTALI ARIDAI CORONA-
AGUIRRE,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Neftali Aridai Corona-Aguirre appeals from a judgment in a criminal
action. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no
issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf.
Defendant has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal.
Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief
description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the
defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.)
I. WENDE/KELLY REVIEW
While defendant was out of custody in an unrelated vehicle theft case, he and
several others were observed dismantling two stolen vehicles. Defendant was charged
with operating a “chop shop” (Veh. Code, § 10801), conspiring to commit a crime (Pen.
Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)), and two counts of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,
§ 496d, subd. (a)). It was alleged that he committed the charged offenses while released
on bail or on his own recognizance. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b).)
In exchange for being granted probation, defendant pleaded no contest to
operating a chop shop and he admitted the crime involved planning, sophistication, or
professionalism (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8)). The trial court suspended
imposition of sentence, placed defendant on probation for a period of two years, and
dismissed the remaining charges and allegations. The court also ordered victim
restitution in an amount to be determined at a later restitution hearing.
The record indicates that following a contested restitution hearing held on
September 24, 2025, the trial court ordered victim restitution to one of the vehicle owners
in the amount of $47,902.41. That amount was apparently based on the victim’s out-of-
pocket expenses ($2,481.03) and the estimated cost to repair the vehicle ($45,421.38).
Defendant had argued in a written filing that restitution should instead be limited to
$12,852.03, based on the victim’s expenses ($2,481.03) and the estimated cost of
purchasing a similar replacement vehicle ($10,371). On the day of the restitution
hearing, defendant filed his notice of appeal from the judgment in this case. He later
appealed separately from the post-judgment restitution order, and that appeal is currently
pending before this court. We note that the record in this appeal of the judgment does not
include a reporter’s transcript of the restitution hearing.
Considering only the judgment itself and not the post-judgment restitution order,
which has been separately appealed, we have reviewed the entire record and have found
no arguable issue that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
II. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
2
____________________________________
Grover, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
Lie, J.
____________________________
Wilson, J.
H053716
The People v. Corona-Aguirre