Filed 7/9/26 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090133, F090139
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. F20908078 &
M24912794)
DANIEL SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Stephanie L.
Negin, Judge.
Vicki Hightower, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.
INTRODUCTION
In 2025, appellant Daniel Sanchez entered changes of plea that resolved two
criminal cases. The first was from a 2020 traffic collision that caused injury. Appellant
pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher and
to causing injury. (Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subd. (b), 23566, subd. (a).)1 He also admitted
a prior strike conviction and two or more priors of driving under the influence (DUI). In
the second case, arising from a 2024 arrest for DUI, appellant pleaded no contest to
felony driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher with a qualifying
prior conviction within the previous 10 years. (§§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550.5, subd. (a).).
He also admitted a prior strike conviction.
For the 2020 DUI causing injury, the court imposed the low term of two years,
which was doubled from the prior strike conviction. For the 2024 felony DUI conviction,
the court imposed a consecutive subordinate term of one year four months. The total
sentence complied with the parties’ negotiated plea agreements.
Appellant appealed in both cases, which were consolidated in this court. After
consolidation occurred, appellant’s counsel filed a Wende2 brief, asking us to conduct an
independent review of the respective records. After reviewing the records, we agree that
no arguable issues exist which warrant further briefing. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Prior to the sentencing in the two criminal cases, the trial court denied appellant’s
Romero3 motion to dismiss the strike prior. Appellant’s prior felony strike conviction
occurred in 1999, and was an assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245,
1 All future statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise noted.
2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
3 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2.
subd. (a)(1)). When declining to strike that prior strike, the trial court noted its extreme
age, but also noted that appellant had a consistent criminal history from that time,
including multiple DUIs leading up to the present charges—in addition to other
misdemeanor convictions—and multiple violations of his terms of probation.
In April 2026, we notified appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief on his
own behalf stating any grounds that he wanted this court to consider. Appellant did not
file a response.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, we have
reviewed the consolidated records. We have examined the procedural history, the
evidence underlying the negotiated plea agreements, and the sentencing proceedings.
We discern no abuse of discretion regarding the trial court’s ruling that it was not
appropriate to strike appellant’s prior strike conviction. (See People v. Carmony (2004)
33 Cal.4th 367, 375 [abuse of discretion standard].) Appellant’s current convictions
involve two separate felony DUI matters, one of which caused injury. Appellant’s
criminal history reflects repeated DUI-related and driving-related offenses and multiple
violations of probation, in addition to the prior strike conviction from 1999. Although the
prior strike is very old, this record does not show an arguable basis to conclude that
appellant fell outside the spirit of the “Three Strikes” law. Nothing in this record
suggests the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, relied on improper factors,
or reached an irrational or arbitrary decision.
Likewise, the sentence imposed presents no arguable issue. The total sentence of
five years four months complied with the parties’ negotiated agreements. Nothing in the
records suggest the imposed sentence was unauthorized. The record reflects that the trial
court understood and properly exercised its sentencing discretion.
Having reviewed the change of plea proceedings, the probation report, the Romero
request, and the sentencing proceedings, we find no arguable issue warranting further
3.
briefing. The convictions were entered pursuant to appellant’s negotiated changes of
plea, the sentence imposed was consistent with the parties’ agreement, and the record
does not reveal any abuse of discretion or unauthorized sentence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4.