People v. Perez
Decision Date | 29 September 2016 |
Docket Number | F069020 |
Citation | 3 Cal.App.5th 812,208 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Alfredo PEREZ, Jr., Defendant and Respondent. |
Elizabeth A. Egan and Lisa A. Smittcamp, District Attorneys, Rudy Carillo and Traci Fritzler, Chief Deputy District Attorneys, and Douglas O. Treisman, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
DETJEN
, J.
Alfredo Perez, Jr., (defendant) was convicted by jury of assault with force likely to produce great bodily harm, a violation of Penal Code section 245
, former subdivision (a)(1).1 The jury further found he suffered two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On May 4, 1995, he was sentenced to a total of two years plus 25 years to life in prison.
In 2012, the Three Strikes Reform Act (hereafter the Act) created a postconviction release proceeding for third strike offenders serving indeterminate life sentences for nonserious and nonviolent felonies. An inmate who meets the criteria enumerated in section 1170.126, subdivision (e), is to be resentenced as a second strike offender unless the court determines such resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126, subd. (f); People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 168, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 901
.) Defendant's conviction was for a crime that was neither a serious nor a violent felony.
An inmate is ineligible for resentencing under the Act, however, if his or her current sentence is “for any of the offenses appearing in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2).) Thus, an inmate is disqualified from resentencing if, inter alia, “[d]uring the commission of the current offense, [he or she] ... was armed with a ... deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.” (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii).)
After the Act went into effect, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence and request for resentencing under the Act. The People opposed the petition on the ground, inter alia, defendant was armed with (and actually used) a deadly weapon during the commission of his offense. Following a hearing, the trial court found defendant eligible for resentencing, and that resentencing defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The court granted the petition and resentenced defendant as a second strike offender.
The People appeal, challenging the trial court's eligibility determination.
We hold an inmate is armed with a deadly weapon within the meaning of clause (iii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 667 and clause (iii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of section 1170.12 ( ) when he or she personally and intentionally uses a vehicle in a manner likely to produce great bodily injury. On the evidence found in the record of conviction, defendant used a vehicle as a deadly weapon. He is, therefore, ineligible for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.126, subdivision (c)(2). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order granting defendant's petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
The jury was instructed pursuant to CALJIC No. 9.00
(1994 rev.), in pertinent part, that an assault required proof Pursuant to CALJIC No. 9.02, they were told assault by means of force required proof of an assault committed by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. They were further told...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Valdez
...640 [applying the substantial evidence test to a determination of resentence ineligibility under the Act]; accord, People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 812, 833, review granted Jan. 11, 2017, S238354; People v. Newman (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 718, 727 (Newman ), review granted Nov. 22, 2016, S2......
-
People v. Hull
...with a deadly weapon does not require proof that defendant actually hit the victim with his vehicle. ( People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 812, 824-825, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 ( Perez ), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225, 240, fn. 8, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 582, ......
-
People v. Frierson
...doubt standard.8 We disapprove the following cases to the extent they are inconsistent with our opinion: People v. Perez(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 812, 833, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 ; People v. Newman(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 718, 727-732, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 427 ; People v. Osuna(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1......
-
People v. Perez
...that purpose a deadly weapon, that they would not be eligible.’ "The Court of Appeal reversed. ( People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 812, 816, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 138 ( Perez ).) The court observed that a deadly weapon under section 245, subdivision (a) is " ‘ "any object, instrument, or weapo......