Filed 6/17/26 P. v. Cross CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065534
v. (Super. Ct. No. 06NF4190)
GEORGE EUGENE CROSS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of
Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed. Request for judicial
notice denied.
George Eugene Cross, in pro per; and Brad J. Poore, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
George Eugene Cross appeals from the trial court’s order denying
the latest of his three separate and successive petitions to seal arrest and
1
related records (Pen. Code, § 851.91). His appointed appellate counsel filed a
brief, pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, setting forth the
procedural facts of the case. Cross filed a supplemental brief in which he did
not address the court’s denial of his petition but instead challenged the 2011
judgment of conviction in his underlying case, including his prison sentence
2
of 25 years to life. He also filed a request for judicial notice. We affirm the
postjudgment order and deny his request for judicial notice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 2009, the district attorney filed a second amended
information, alleging Cross committed a forcible rape in 1997. (Former § 261,
subd. (a)(2).) The second amended information included two separate
allegations under the “One Strike” law that the offense was committed
during the commission of a burglary. (Former § 667.61, subds. (a) & (d)(4)
[providing for a sentence of 25 years to life]; former § 667.61, subds. (b) &
(e)(2) [providing for a sentence of 15 years to life].)
Following a jury trial in February 2011, Cross was convicted of
the charged offense (2011 conviction) and both of the One Strike allegations
1
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Although
Cross’s notice of appeal states his appeal is after “Judicial Notice of
[California Supreme Court] case [No.] S284141[,] Denied Erroneous
Conviction[,] [April] 24, 2024[,] En Banc,” it also states Cross appeals from
the trial court’s postjudgment order dated April 30, 2025. We read the notice
of appeal to reflect Cross’s intent to appeal from the April 30, 2025 order
denying his latest petition to seal his arrest and related records.
2
In his supplemental brief, Cross also raises issues concerning an
unrelated judgment entered against him in Sacramento County.
2
were found to be true. The court sentenced Cross to prison for a term of 25
years to life based on one of the One Strike findings (former § 667.61, subds.
(a) & (d)(4)). The court stayed the punishment on the other One Strike
finding (former § 667.61, subds. (b) & (e)(2)). Cross appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed. (People v. Cross (Nov. 27, 2012, G044769) [nonpub.
3
opn.].)
In November 2022, Cross filed a petition under section 851.91 to
seal his arrest and other records related to the 2011 conviction. That petition
was denied by the trial court in December 2022. On appeal, the trial court’s
denial of the petition was affirmed. (People v. Cross (Jan. 18, 2024, G062184)
[nonpub. opn.].)
In July 2023, Cross filed a second petition under section 851.91 to
seal his arrest and other records related to the 2011 conviction. The trial
court denied that petition, finding Cross “statutorily ineligible for relief.” On
appeal, the trial court’s denial of the petition was affirmed. (People v. Cross
(Aug. 2, 2024, G062928) [nonpub. opn.].)
On April 21, 2025, Cross filed the instant petition, again brought
under section 851.91, to seal his arrest and other records related to the 2011
conviction. In denying the instant petition, the trial court found: Cross
“previously moved for relief under these sections in 2023. On July 18, 2023,
the court denied the petition[], finding petitioner statutorily ineligible for
relief because he is presently serving an indeterminate sentence as a result of
his conviction.” The court also noted, Cross “did not provide any new relevant
authority to justify the successive petitions. Successive applications upon the
3
Proceedings are ongoing in the Orange County Superior Court
regarding the correction of the abstract of judgment.
3
same statement of facts are to be discouraged, and a court will ordinarily
refuse to consider repeated motions supported by substantially the same
showing as the one denied.” Cross timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
In his supplemental brief, Cross does not address the only issue
presented in this appeal—whether the trial court erred in denying his most
recent section 851.91 petition to seal his arrest and other records related to
4
the 2011 conviction. Instead, he makes several arguments concerning the
validity of the 2011 conviction. Cross may not use this appeal to attack that
underlying judgment of conviction, including his sentence, which was upheld
on appeal and has been final since 2013. We do not address his arguments
concerning the 2011 conviction or with respect to any out-of-county conviction
because they are beyond the scope of this appeal.5
Cross’s supplemental brief does not identify any grounds for
reversing the court’s postjudgment order denying his latest petition to seal
his arrest and other records related to the 2011 conviction. We note this is the
third petition of this nature that Cross has filed. A successive petition may be
appropriate where it is “based on new authority which challenged the
primary ground for the superior court’s summary denial” of the first petition.
(People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 951.) But such is not the case
4
Section 851.91 “provides for the sealing of arrest records in
certain situations when the arrest did not result in a conviction.” (People v.
D.C. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 727, 733.)
5
Cross requests we take judicial notice of certain documents. One
of the specified documents is already included in our record; we therefore
deny Cross’s request with respect to that document. We deny the request as
to the remaining documents because they are irrelevant to the resolution of
the issue on appeal.
4
here. With respect to both his second petition and the instant petition, Cross
failed to identify new authority which challenged the trial court’s denial of
his first petition. With respect to the second petition, the trial court denied
the petition on the ground Cross was statutorily ineligible for relief under
section 851.91 and we affirmed. In denying the instant petition, the trial
court again found Cross statutorily ineligible for relief under section 851.91.
We again agree with the trial court.
We have also examined the record and are satisfied Cross’s
counsel fully complied with the responsibilities of appellate counsel and no
arguable issues exist. Accordingly, to the extent Cross requests new counsel
on appeal, we deny such request.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying Cross’s petition to seal his
arrest and other records related to the 2011 conviction pursuant to section
851.91 is affirmed. Cross’s request for judicial notice is denied.
MOTOIKE, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, J.
SCOTT, J.
5