People v. Perez CA4/3

Filed 11/20/24 P. v. Perez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062571

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CF1392)

JOHNNY JOSE PEREZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Scott A. Steiner, Judge. Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Michael J. Patty, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Johnny Jose Perez was convicted of mayhem and assault stemming from his participation in the beating of a fellow jail inmate. He does not appeal the substance of his convictions; instead, he argues the court erred at sentencing when it failed to dismiss all but one of the enhancements alleged against him. Perez contends that because Penal Code1 section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B), contains the phrase “all enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed,” it required the court to do so in this case. We must disagree. Numerous other courts have concluded that, when the phrase at issue here is read in the context of the broader statutory language the court must dismiss enhancements only if it makes the discretionary determination that “it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.” (§ 1385, subdivision (c)(1).) We agree with that analysis. As a result, we find no error here. Perez also argues the court abused its discretion by declining to consider his childhood trauma as a mitigating factor in connection with dismissing an enhancement. But the court specifically referenced the evidence of Perez’s childhood trauma before finding that evidence did not rise to the level of persuasive mitigation. Evidence of childhood trauma, standing alone, does not automatically constitute a mitigating factor under section 1385,