Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Mendes CA3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: C102793

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Mendes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

(Butte)

THE PEOPLE, C102793

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18CF03572,
20CF00924, 20CF05871,
v. 23CF02728)

ADAM ROSS MENDES,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the conviction of defendant Adam Ross
Mendes but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in case
Nos. 18CF03572, 20CF00924, and 20CF05871 (case Nos. 572, 924, and 871). (People v.
Mendes (Jun. 23, 2022, C093550) nonpub. opn..) Defendant then appealed
after resentencing, and we again vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for
resentencing after concluding defendant’s absence at his resentencing hearing constituted
prejudicial error. (People v. Mendes (Mar. 15, 2024, C097978) nonpub. opn..)1

1 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s prior opinions in
Mendes I and Mendes II. (Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)

1
While awaiting resentencing in case Nos. 572, 924, 871, defendant pled no contest
to violating section 2101, subdivision (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Code in case
No. 23CF02728 (case No. 728). The trial court simultaneously sentenced defendant in all
four cases.
Defendant now appeals after the most recent resentencing. Appointed counsel
asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination
of the entire record, we have found an issue with the calculation of credits. We remand
for the trial court to recalculate defendant’s actual time in custody and otherwise affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In case No. 572, defendant pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)2; in case
No. 924, defendant pled guilty to failure to appear (§ 1320.5); and in case No. 871,
defendant pled no contest to resisting an executive officer (§ 69, subd. (a)). (Mendes II,
supra, C097978.) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate seven year prison
term. (Ibid.) On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing in light of amendments to
section 1170. (Ibid.) Following remand and resentencing, defendant again appealed, and
this court vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for further resentencing. (Ibid.)
While awaiting resentencing on those three cases, the People charged defendant in
case No. 728 with making a false statement to obtain unemployment benefits. (Unemp.
Ins. Code, § 2101, subd. (a).) Defendant pled no contest to the charge in exchange for an
eight month prison term.
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of five years eight
months, as follows: three years (the middle term) for case No. 572, and eight months
(one-third the middle term) consecutive each for the counts in case Nos. 924, 871, and
728, plus eight months consecutive for an unrelated case that is not at issue in this appeal.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2
The trial court awarded defendant 347 actual days plus 52 conduct credits, for a
total of 399 custody credits. The court credited defendant with 1,379 days of total time
served.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Counsel advised
defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing
of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no
communication from defendant.
“The prophylactic procedures in Wende are ‘relevant when, and only when, a
litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel.’ ” (People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 224.) There is no constitutional right to counsel,
however, “in state postconviction proceedings.” (Id. at p. 226.) Thus, Wende review is
limited to “an indigent criminal defendant in his first appeal as of right” and “do[es] not
extend to an appeal, even on direct review, that is discretionary.” (Delgadillo, at p. 227.)
We previously affirmed defendant’s convictions in case Nos. 572, 924, and 871 and
remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing in Mendes II, and “Wende thus does not
apply to [defendant’s] postconviction proceedings” in those cases. (Delgadillo, at
p. 227.) However, because defendant was not provided notice that we may dismiss his
appeal, we exercise our discretion to conduct a Wende review. (Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
The scope of our review in case Nos. 572, 924, and 871, nevertheless, is
circumscribed by our remand order. (People v. Murphy (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392, 396-
397.) Because defendant previously challenged his convictions in a direct appeal while
represented by counsel, our independent review is limited to resentencing. (People v.

3
Deere (1991) 53 Cal.3d 705, 713; People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 535.) As
to defendant’s appeal in case No. 728, because it is his first appeal of right, we
independently review the entire record on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) After independently reviewing the record, we have found an issue with the
calculation of credits.
When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must
credit him with all actual days he spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that
time, including his time in custody after the original sentencing. (People v. Buckhalter
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37.) Here, the trial court did not include all of defendant’s actual
days in custody in the abstract of judgment. At resentencing, the trial court also awarded
custody credits in a separate case not subject to this appeal. As such, we cannot discern
from the record how the trial court calculated defendant’s total time in custody. We will
remand the matter for the trial court to recalculate defendant’s actual time spent in
custody.

4
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded for the limited purpose of recalculating the actual days of
credit for which defendant is eligible on his resentencing. The trial court is directed to
prepare an amended abstract of judgment setting forth the modified credits and to
forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The trial
court’s sentencing order in case Nos. 572, 924, and 871 and the judgment in case No. 728
are otherwise affirmed.

/s/
MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

/s/
HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/
MAURO, J.

5