People v. Cervantez CA2/2

Filed 5/8/25 P. v. Cervantez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B336795

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA204837)

JOSE OCTAVIO CERVANTEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Elliott Veals, Judge. Affirmed. John Lanahan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Jose Octavio Cervantez appeals the summary denial of his petition under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), which permits juvenile offenders sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) to petition for recall and resentencing. Appellant argues that his sentence of 32 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP because he has a developmental disability, rendering him less likely to be released on parole. We reject this contention and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2002, a jury convicted appellant of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)), and attempted robbery (§§ 211 & 664). The jury also found true firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (d), and that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Appellant was 15 years old at the time of these offenses. The trial court sentenced him to life, plus 25 years to life for one of the firearm enhancements.2 The court either stayed or ran concurrently the sentences for the other offenses. In December 2023, appellant filed a petition under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), to recall his sentence. The People