Filed 8/6/26 P. v. Negrete 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090525
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. CR-23-002137)
v.
ISAIAH DAVID RIVERA NEGRETE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Carrie M.
Stephens, Judge.
Richard L. Fitzer, 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 Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Harrell, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Isaiah David Rivera Negrete (appellant) was charged
with driving under the influence causing injury and other offenses. He pleaded to driving
under the influence causing injury and was placed on probation. While he was on
probation, he was arrested for violating probation by drinking and committing new
offenses. After a contested hearing, the trial court revoked probation and imposed a
prison term.
On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations
to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Appellant did not file a supplemental
brief on his own behalf. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On or about September 1, 2023, an information was filed in Stanislaus Superior
Court case No. CR-23-002137 charging appellant with committing the following offenses
on or about December 26, 2022: count 1, felony driving under the influence which
proximately caused bodily injury to the first victim (Veh. Code,1 § 23153, subd. (a));
count 2, felony driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher and causing
injury to the same victim (§ 23153, subd. (b)); count 3, felony hit and run causing injuries
to the first, second, and third victims (§ 20001, subd. (a)); counts 4 and 5, misdemeanor
resisting arrest of two different officers (Pen. Code, § 148, subd(a)(1)); and count 6,
misdemeanor giving false information to a peace officer (Pen. Code, §148.9, subd. (a)).
There were two special allegations as to counts 1 and 2, that he caused injury to
more than one person, respectively, the second and third victims (§ 23558); and one
special allegation that he had a prior conviction for violating section 23152,
subdivision (b) in 2021, within the preceding 10 years.
1 All further statutory citations are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise indicated.
2.
Plea and Probation
On January 17, 2024, appellant pleaded no contest to count 1, felony driving under
the influence proximately causing bodily injury (§ 23153, subd. (a)). The trial court
dismissed the other charges and special allegations.2
On the same day, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed
appellant on probation for three years subject to certain terms and conditions, including
service of 180 days in county jail, obeying all laws and the rules of the probation officer,
and submit his person, vehicle, and residence to search and seizure at any time of the day
or night by any law enforcement officer, with or without probable cause, reasonable
suspicion, or a search warrant.
Violation of Probation
On October 18, 2024, the probation officer filed a report with the trial court,
stating appellant violated probation in this case because he was arrested by the Modesto
Police Department, on or about October 16, 2024, for committing multiple domestic
violence offenses and resisting arrest. On the same day, the trial court summarily
revoked appellant’s probation in case No. CR-23-002137 and he was remanded into
custody.
PRELIMINARY HEARING AND CONTESTED
PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING
On October 31, 2024, the trial court convened a hearing to address two matters:
(1) the preliminary hearing for the new domestic violence and resisting arrest charges
2 During the plea proceedings, the trial court advised appellant: “Drinking and
driving is inherently dangerous. If you drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or a
combination of the two, and by that driving you cause the death of someone, the law
permits the [District Attorney] … to file murder charges against you.” Appellant said he
understood.
3.
filed in case No. CR-24-013167, and (2) the contested probation revocation hearing in
case No. CR-23-002137.
The court began with the preliminary hearing in the new case with the domestic
violence and resisting charges. The witnesses were M.N., the victim in the domestic
violence charges, and two officers who investigated the case.
The Victim
M.N. testified she was in a dating relationship with appellant for about one year,
and they became engaged. On September 22, 2024, M.N. went to a baby shower, and
then met up with appellant at a sushi restaurant. When she arrived, he was drinking sake
bombs, an alcoholic beverage. She joined him and they drank three sake bombs together.
They left the sushi restaurant and drove to appellant’s house in their separate cars. They
sat around and talked and decided to go to another restaurant for a drink.
M.N. testified that when they left appellant’s house, he told her to drive because
there was an alcohol-detection device mounted on the driver’s side of his car. The device
was installed because he was on probation, and he had to blow into it to drive the car.
Appellant said he had been able to drive from the sushi restaurant to his house, because
he knew that “[h]e had to get there within a certain amount of time before so many
beeps” when the car would stop.
M.N. had placed leftover food from the baby shower on the front passenger seat.
When appellant opened the passenger door, the food fell on the ground and he said it was
not a big deal. Appellant got into M.N.’s car and they argued about the food and other
matters. M.N. decided not to drive to the restaurant and turned around. Appellant threw
his cell phone inside the car and broke the windshield. Appellant got into the driver’s
seat and sat on top of M.N. Appellant slapped her and banged her head backwards on the
headrest of the driver’s seat. Appellant stayed on top of M.N. and took over driving. She
told him to stop but he kept driving. Appellant said she was lucky he did not kill her.
4.
She threw his cell phone out of the window. He stopped the car and got out to get it.
M.N. took control of her car and drove away.
M.N. testified about incidents that occurred on October 12, 2024, when she met
appellant at his house at night. They drank and talked and then went into his bedroom.
Appellant performed acts of oral sex on M.N., bit her vagina twice, and she objected.
Appellant said he was mad because she said something offensive. Appellant threw her
across the bed and against the wall. M.N. said she was going to leave, and appellant
pushed her back to the mattress and said no. Appellant spit on her and slapped her
several times.
M.N. got up and again said she was leaving. Appellant threw her on the bed, got
on top of her, and straddled her body. M.N. told appellant that he “[didn’t] want to do
this” because he was on probation. Appellant got mad and put one hand on her neck and
choked her, and kept saying, “Look what you made me do.”
M.N. was afraid and called out to “Siri” on her cell phone to call 911. Appellant
grabbed her cell phone and put it away. Appellant dragged M.N. off the bed by her hair
to the front door and said he was going to throw her out. Appellant then said he was
again going to drag her by her “beautiful, long, black hair” and dragged her back to the
bedroom.
Appellant put M.N. on the bed and sat on top of her. He pulled out his cell phone
and acted like he was calling the mother of his children and told her to “come right now.
This b[****] is acting stupid. Yeah, come right now. And [he] goes, hurry. And then he
hung up the phone.” Appellant told M.N. he was going to “f[***] [her] up. I’m going to
have her f[***] you up. I’m going to have her claw my face, call the cops and tell them
you broke into my house and caught me f[***]ing my baby mamma.”
M.N. asked to leave. Appellant said no because she was just going to call the
police on him. M.N. said she would not but he again refused. Appellant held her tight
and fell asleep, and she was finally able to get away.
5.
The investigation and appellant’s arrest
On October 15, 2024, M.N. called the police and reported appellant beat her. On
the same day, Modesto Police Officer Blum responded to M.N.’s call. M.N. reported that
appellant assaulted her. Blum took photographs of numerous injuries on her body.
Also on the same day, Officer Blum went to appellant’s house, accompanied by
Officer Ureno and two other officers. They were all wearing marked uniforms. Blum
knocked on the front door and identified the group as police officers. There was a delay,
and appellant eventually opened the interior door but not the outer screen door.
Officer Blum asked appellant to step outside so they could talk about an incident.
Appellant refused. Blum told him that he was under arrest and needed to open the screen
door. Appellant started to back away from the front doorway and said he needed to call
his child’s mother and retreated into the house. Blum repeatedly ordered him to open the
front door. Appellant said he could not come outside, and he had to call the child’s
mother.
Officer Ureno broke through the outer screen door and gained entry. As Ureno
did so, appellant grabbed his five-year-old child, who started crying and was visibly
upset. Officer Blum advised appellant not to do this in front of the child and repeatedly
told him to put down the child. Appellant held onto the child and appeared to be using
the child as a barrier to prevent the officers from taking him into custody. Blum tried to
pull the child away and appellant held on tighter. Ureno grabbed appellant’s arms from
behind, and Blum was finally able to get the child away from appellant.
Appellant was advised several times that he was under arrest and to place his
hands behind his back. Appellant refused and resisted the officers. The officers were
unable to overcome appellant’s resistance, and Officer Ureno had to use a Taser to gain
control over him.
6.
The Trial Court’s Orders
The trial court held appellant to answer in the new case No. CR-24-013167 on
multiple counts of domestic violence and resisting arrest.
The trial court also found probable cause that appellant violated the terms and
conditions of his probation in case No. CR-23-002137 by consuming alcohol and driving
a vehicle and committing new offenses.
Sentencing
On September 24, 2025, the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing after
appellant was convicted of the domestic violence and resisting offenses in case
No. CR-24-013167.
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of eight years four months for both
case No. CR-24-013167 and the probation violation case No. CR-23-002137.
In case No. CR-24-013167, the trial court imposed the upper term of six years for
count 8, child endangerment, with consecutive sentences of one year (one-third the
midterm) for count 3, willful and unlawful infliction of a corporal injury resulting in a
traumatic condition on M.N. (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and eight months (one-third the
midterm) for count 9, resisting an executive officer, on or about October 15, 2024 (§ 69).
In case No. CR-23-002137, the court imposed a consecutive term of eight months (one-
third the midterm) for count 1, driving under the influence proximately causing bodily
injury (§ 23153, subd. (a)).3
On the same day, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in case
No. CR-23-002137, the probation revocation case.
3 During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel moved for the trial court to
correct the calculation of appellant’s presentence credits. On March 20, 2026, the trial
court filed an amended minute order and abstract of judgment that corrected appellant’s
credits.
7.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief
also includes counsel’s declaration that appellant was advised he could file her own brief
with this court. On March 24, 2026, this court advised appellant by letter that he could
file a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues. Appellant did not do so.
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or
legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
8.