Filed 7/14/26 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
F090292
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. F18902753)
v.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ SANCHEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L.
Harrell, Judge.
Ross Thomas, 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., Detjen, J. and DeSantos, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Ignacio Hernandez Sanchez (appellant) was convicted
after a jury trial of second degree murder with a firearm enhancement and a prior strike
conviction. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 70 years to life. On appeal, his
conviction was affirmed but the matter was remanded for the trial court to decide whether
to exercise its discretion to strike or reduce the term imposed for the firearm
enhancement.
On remand, the trial court declined to exercise its discretion and again sentenced
appellant to 70 years to life. 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).) We
affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2018, an information was filed in the Fresno County Superior Court
charging appellant with count 1, murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) with a firearm
enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). It was further alleged appellant had two prior
strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and other prior
conviction allegations (§ 667.5, subds. (a), (b)).
On June 28, 2018, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted of second degree
murder, and the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement was found true.
Appellant admitted the prior conviction allegations.
On November 1, 2019, appellant was sentenced to 45 years to life for count 1,
second degree murder, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm
enhancement, for an aggregate term of 70 years to life. The court ordered the sentences
for the prior prison term enhancements stricken.
1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
2.
On March 23, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8, filed the
nonpublished opinion in appellant’s direct appeal. (People v. Sanchez (Mar. 23, 2023,
B322568) [nonpub. opn.].)2 The Second District affirmed appellant’s murder conviction.
However, it remanded the matter for resentencing because the trial court did not
understand the scope of its discretion to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d)
firearm enhancement or impose a lesser enhancement. It also ordered the trial court to
strike the true findings for the prior prison term enhancements since they were no longer
valid after statutory amendments, and correct appellant’s presentence custody credits.
On June 9, 2025, the trial court conducted the resentencing hearing on remand.
The trial court ordered the jury’s true findings on the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior
prison term enhancements stricken because they were now unauthorized by law, and
dismissed the section 667.5, subdivision (a) enhancement pursuant to section 1385. The
court declined to exercise its discretion to either strike or impose a lesser firearm
enhancement. It again sentenced appellant to 45 years to life for second degree murder
plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement for the aggregate term of 70 years to
life, and corrected his time credits.
On August 7, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the resentencing
hearing.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court on February
17, 2026, with the proof of service showing it was sent to appellant at the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Attached to the brief was appellate
counsel’s declaration that counsel advised appellant that he “may personally file a
supplemental brief in this case raising any issues which he wishes to call to the court’s
2 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in this court (People v. Sanchez,
F080246). On August 9, 2022, the California Supreme Court ordered this appeal
transferred to the Second Appellate District.
3.
attention within 30 days.” Appellate counsel advised this court that he had “no record or
recollection of appellant’s opening brief being returned to [his] office.” Appellant did not
file a supplemental brief.
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or
legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4.