California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 2025 No. E083027Unpublished
Filed 3/3/25 P. v. Perez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083027
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1707851)
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL PEREZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Dismissed.
Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Melissa
Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Christopher Daniel Perez filed an appeal from a
postjudgment order finding him ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code1
section 1172.75. He argues the trial court erred in denying him a full resentencing
Defendant appealed. This court vacated his sentence and remanded the
matter for the trial court to exercise its discretion in resentencing defendant on all
counts, with directions for the court to strike the four prison priors, pursuant to
Senate Bill No. 136. (Perez, supra, E073399.)
On October 6, 2021, upon remand, the court resentenced defendant to a
total term of 39 years eight months in state prison and struck the punishment on
the four prison priors.4 {CT 80-82}
2 By order dated April 12, 2024, this court granted defendant’s request that we take judicial notice of the unpublished opinion in his prior appeal, People v. Perez (Dec. 4, 2020, E073399) [nonpub. opn.] and the record in his related appeal, People v. Perez, E078155. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d) and 459.) 3 We note the court sentenced defendant on three cases at this hearing, including the instant case and superior court case no. RIF1702047. {RT 4} We additionally note there was an apparent discrepancy as to the actual sentence the court imposed in the instant case, which we noted in our prior opinion. However, since we remanded the matter for a full resentencing, we declared the issue moot. (Perez, supra, E073399.) 4 The abstract of judgment lists each of the four prison priors with a “PS” for “punishment struck.” {CT 80} We note the abstract reflects that the court imposed five years on a fifth prison prior. {CT 80} The court found true that the allegations that defendant have four prison priors and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)); thus, we assume the five years imposed was for the prior serious felony enhancement. 3
Defendant filed a second appeal, arguing the court erred in failing to
provide a new statement of reasons in support of its sentencing choices at the time
of resentencing, pursuant to newly amended section 1170, subdivision (b).
(People v. Perez (July 8, 2022, E078155) [nonpub. opn.].)5
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
subsequently identified defendant as an inmate who was serving a sentence that
included prison prior enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), which
might no longer be valid under section 1172.75.6
On December 21, 2023, the court held a resentencing hearing.7 Defendant
was not present but was represented by counsel. The court stated that in a similar
case, it determined the defendant was ineligible for a full resentencing under
5 The Supreme Court granted review on this case and recently transferred the matter back to our court, with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730. (People v. Perez (Oct. 2, 2024, S275987) [nonpub. opn.].) Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s remand, we considered People v. Lynch and reversed defendant’s sentence. We directed the trial court, on remand, to “give the People an opportunity to try the truth of any circumstances in aggravation in a bifurcated proceeding pursuant to section 1170. If the People elect not to proceed with a bifurcated trial, or at the conclusion of any such trial, the trial court shall conduct a full resentencing where it will have discretion to reexamine all aspects of defendant’s sentence.” (People v. Perez (Nov. 12, 2024, E078155) [nonpub. opn.].) 6 By order dated August 19, 2024, this court granted defendant’s request that we take judicial notice of the CDCR list dated June 16, 2022. Defendant is listed on page 25 of that document. (See defendant’s request for judicial notice filed on July 29, 2024, and attached exhibits.) 7 We note that the court ruled on defendant’s eligibility for relief under section 1172.75 in two of defendant’s cases at this hearing — the instant case and superior court case no. RIF1702047. 4
section 1172.75 because the sentences on the prior prison enhancements were
imposed and stayed. The court made the same ruling in this case and ordered the
prison priors to be “stricken and removed from the abstract of judgment consistent
with what should have happened originally.” {RT 25, Aug. RT 19-20}
DISCUSSION
The Appeal is Dismissed
In his opening brief, defendant argued the trial court erred in determining
he was not entitled to a full resentencing under section 1172.75, subdivision (d).
However, he has now abandoned the appeal and requests that we dismiss it. We
hereby grant the request and dismiss the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.316.)
DISPOSITION
Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal following his voluntary request for abandonment.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying a full resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.
Whether the trial court's interpretation of section 1172.75 violates equal protection.
Whether the trial court erred in conducting a resentencing hearing in the defendant's absence.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“As we were finalizing the tentative opinion in this appeal, defendant filed a “Notice of Abandonment of Appeal; Request for Dismissal,” informing this court that he is abandoning his appeal and asking us to dismiss it.”
“We hereby grant the request and dismiss the appeal.”