Filed 10/6/26 P. v. Hurst CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Lassen)
THE PEOPLE, C104208
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No.
v. 2021CR0050257)
MATTHEW CURTIS HURST,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Matthew Curtis Hurst appeals from his resentencing following our
2024 reversal of 22 of his 23 convictions for various sex crimes. Appointed counsel filed
an opening brief that sets forth the procedural history of this case1 and asks this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable errors that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
As our review of the record is limited to the resentencing proceedings, the facts
underlying defendant’s crime are not relevant to any potential issues on appeal. It
suffices to say that a jury convicted defendant of 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault
1 Appointed counsel omitted as irrelevant a recitation of facts underlying defendant’s
sole remaining conviction on count 23.
1
involving sexual penetration of a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, §§ 269,
subd. (a)(5), 289, subd. (a)(1)(B)—counts I-X),2 10 counts of sexual penetration by
foreign object upon a child over 14 years old (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C)—counts XI-XX),
and three counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious or sleeping person (§ 289,
subd. (d)(1)—counts XXI-XXIII). (People v. Hurst (Dec. 27, 2024, C099850) [nonpub.
opn.].)3 The jury also found true a special statute of limitations allegation. (§ 803,
subd. (f)(1).) (People v. Hurst, supra, C099850.)
Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 15 years to life in prison on
counts I through IV, concurrent terms of 15 years to life on counts V through X,
concurrent terms of eight years each for counts XI through XX, and concurrent terms of
six years each on counts XXI through XXIII. (People v. Hurst, supra, C099850.) The
court imposed various fines and fees and ordered direct victim restitution for
noneconomic losses at $100,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(F)). (People v. Hurst, supra,
C099850.)
On appeal, a different panel of this court reversed counts I through X for violating
the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and counts XI through XXII for
insufficient evidence. (People v. Hurst, supra, C099850.) This court also struck the
noneconomic damages restitution award based on the reversal of the relevant underlying
convictions. (Ibid.) This court remanded for a full resentencing. (Ibid.)
On May 13, 2025, the trial court resentenced defendant to the middle term of six
years on count 23 with “credit for the same amount of days” imposed at the initial
sentencing plus additional credit for time served between the initial sentencing and the
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s unpublished opinion
in defendant’s appeal of the original judgment (People v. Hurst, supra, C099850). (Evid.
Code, §§ 451, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
2
resentencing.4 The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole
revocation fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and
$30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant timely appealed.
On May 11, 2026, defendant filed a letter pursuant to People v. Fares (1993)
16 Cal.App.4th 954 in the superior court requesting correction of the abstract of judgment
to increase the actual credits from 1,033 to 1,591 days, increase the total credits from
1,188 to 1,746 days, change the hearing date to the date of resentencing of May 13, 2025,
and change the imposition of credits as being imposed under section 2933.1 instead of
section 4019. The trial court issued a corrected abstract of judgment with the requested
corrections.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth procedural history of the
case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised
by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the
opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a
supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
4 The trial court noted it did not need to make findings as to the number of credits
defendant was entitled to because the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had
that information.
3
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
KRAUSE, J.
/S/
MESIWALA, J.
4