Filed 10/22/26 P. v. Talamantes CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B347508, B347509
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos. BA306748-01,
v. XCNBA321010-01)
ROBERTO TALAMANTES,
Defendant and Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from orders of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette Verastegui, Judge.
Affirmed.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott Taryle and Patricia Rosman, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We find these consolidated matters appropriate for
disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance with the
California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See
People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of
memorandum opinions].) We grant the People’s unopposed
request for judicial notice filed June 26, 2026. (Evid. Code,
§ 452.)
On October 25, 2006, appellant Roberto Talamantes pled
no contest to corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent
in violation of Penal Code1 section 273.5, subdivision (a). He also
admitted a section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement for
personal use of a deadly weapon, a knife. (Case No. BA306748.)
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed
Talamantes on probation for five years.
Nine months later, while on probation, Talamantes pled no
contest to assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section
245, subdivision (a)(1). (Case No. XCNBA321010.) The
resolution of the case was pursuant to a plea agreement. The
trial court sentenced Talamantes to the low term of two years in
state prison. It had earlier revoked his probation in case
No. BA306748 based on this new charge. In sentencing
Talamantes to two years in state prison, it terminated the
revoked grant of probation as part of the plea agreement.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
Seventeen years later, in 2024, Talamantes filed motions
pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), to reduce each felony
conviction to a misdemeanor. Neither motion advised the court of
any rehabilitative efforts Talamantes had undertaken or any
other personal facts and circumstances relevant to rehabilitation.
The trial court heard both motions together on June 3, 2025. At
the hearing, the People objected to any reduction “for two
reasons. Number one, Mr. Talamantes is currently serving time
in state prison. I believe it’s a life sentence, but secondly, he had
probation terminated in this case on July of 2007 because of his
state prison commitment in case number five that’s before the
Court. [¶] And on number five, the case ending in 010, defendant
is not eligible for a [section] 17 (b), because he was sentenced to
state prison.” The trial court denied each motion. The minute
order for the conviction for spousal corporal injury reads:
“Defendant is currently serving a life sentence in state prison.”
Talamantes timely appealed the orders in each case.
In this consolidated appeal, Talamantes rightfully makes
no argument challenging the denial of his motion to reduce the
conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in case No.
BA321010 to a misdemeanor. The court cannot reduce a felony to
a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b), when a prison
sentence has been imposed. (People v. Wood (1998)
62 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.) Talamantes was sentenced to two
years in state prison on this conviction. We affirm the trial
court’s order declining to reduce the assault conviction.
3
As for the conviction for corporal injury to a
spouse/cohabitant under section 273.5, a different rule applies.
Section 273.5 is a “wobbler,” that is, an offense that may be
punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. (People v. Sillas
(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 3; People v. Lee (2017)
16 Cal.App.5th 861, 866 (Lee).) Section 17, subdivision (b,)
“authorizes the reduction of ‘wobbler’ offenses . . . upon
imposition of a punishment other than state prison” or by
declaration as a misdemeanor after a grant of probation. (People
v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 974; People v.
Woodward (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 379, 388.) Where the court
suspends pronouncement of judgment or imposition of sentence
and grants probation for a wobbler, the offense is regarded a
felony for all purposes until judgment or sentence and if no
judgment is pronounced it remains a felony. (People v. Esparza
(1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 363, 364–365.) However, the trial court
retains discretion to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor and thus
the defendant remains eligible for relief under section 17,
subdivision (b). (Alvarez, at p. 977 [the decision to reduce a
wobbler to a misdemeanor is solely in the discretion of the court];
People v. Villalba (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 659, 667 [“Where an
offense is a wobbler and the court suspends imposition of
sentence and grants probation, . . . the offense is deemed a felony
unless and until the court subsequently reduces it to a
misdemeanor.”].)
Talamantes contends the trial court abused its discretion in
denying the reduction motion because it proceeded with
sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion to
reduce the felony to a misdemeanor. He contends remand is
necessary so that the trial court may exercise informed
4
sentencing discretion. (Lee, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at pp. 866–
867.)
We disagree. The Legislature intended section 17,
subdivision (b), to give relief to those who have shown
rehabilitation. (People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 892.)
A court’s consideration of section 17, subdivision (b), reduction
relief requires a review of the whole record, including the
petitioner’s criminal record, and prohibits the court from viewing
the current offense “in a vacuum.” (Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th at
p. 979.) The burden is on the party attacking the sentence to
clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or
arbitrary. (Id. at p. 977.) To meet this burden, the defendant
must “ ‘affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court
misunderstood its sentencing discretion.’ ” (Lee, supra,
16 Cal.App.5th at p. 866.)
Here, the People advised the court that Talamantes was
currently serving a life sentence. The records we have judicially
noticed confirm that Talamantes has been in custody in state
prison since 2021 and will be eligible for parole in 2041.
Sustaining another felony conviction after two prior felony
convictions does not show rehabilitation. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying reduction of the assault conviction
to a misdemeanor.
5
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
WILEY, J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
6