People v. Diaz-Rondan CA1/1
A171102
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 31, 2025Background
- Israel Diaz-Rondan was convicted following his no contest plea to five counts of first degree residential burglary and one count of grand theft firearm.
- The convictions stemmed from a series of residential burglaries linked through evidence involving surveillance footage, automated license plate reader data, and cell phone location records.
- Diaz-Rondan moved to suppress evidence, arguing lack of probable cause and misrepresentation in the search warrant affidavit; his motion was denied by the trial court.
- Diaz-Rondan appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion and alleging assessment calculation errors at sentencing.
- The appellate court reviewed the mandatory assessment calculations and the validity of the search, as well as conducted an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende.
- The judgment was affirmed with a modification to impose correct mandatory criminal and court assessment fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calculation of mandatory assessments | Correct mandatory assessments must be imposed per statute | The court failed to advise of correct fees; prosecution acquiesced in lower fee amounts | Sentence was unauthorized; appellate court can and should correct assessment amounts |
| Validity of the search warrant and denial of suppression | Warrant was supported by probable cause, no misrepresentation in affidavit | Warrant based on stale/inaccurate info and misrepresented facts | Warrant supported by probable cause; suppression motion properly denied |
| Impact of assessments on plea agreement | Additional assessments are statutory, not negotiated | Omitting fees from plea advice is a plea agreement violation | No violation—fees are mandatory and not materially significant to plea |
| Clerical error in abstract of judgment | Abstract incorrectly stated assessment bases and amounts | -- | Abstract must be corrected to reflect the statutory basis and the proper amounts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (sets procedure for appellate review when counsel finds no meritorious issues)
- People v. Turner, 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (unauthorized sentences may be corrected at any time)
- People v. Walker, 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Cal. 1991) (insignificant conditions or punishments not disclosed do not generally violate plea agreements)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) (clerical errors in abstracts of judgment may be corrected on appeal)