People v. Pizana CA4/3

Filed 8/15/25 P. v. Pizana 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063132

v. (Super. Ct. No. 98CF3182)

CESAR ALFREDO PIZANA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed with limited remand. Nancy Sanchez, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Elizabeth M. Renner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)1 allows a defendant to file a petition for recall and resentencing if he was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). A defendant is eligible to file this petition once he has been incarcerated for 15 years. (§ 1770 (d)(1)(A).) Cesar Alfredo Pizana was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life, after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder. Pizana was 16 years old at the time of the offense. He was 18 years old at the time of sentencing. In July 2023, Pizana filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170 (d). The trial court denied it because it found Pizana was statutorily ineligible for relief given that he was not sentenced to LWOP or its functional equivalent, citing People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 612 (Heard) and this court’s opinion in People v. Perez (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 49, 57 (Perez). Pizana’s sentence is not LWOP or its functional equivalent. Pizana will be 51 years old when he would otherwise become eligible for parole. Under Perez, this means he will have “some meaningful life expectancy left” when he is eligible for release. (Perez, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 57.) Moreover, we recently concluded in People v. Ortega (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1252 (Ortega) that a defendant who is entitled to a youthful offender parole hearing under section 3051 is not serving the functional equivalent of LWOP per the California Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 279–280 (Franklin). We therefore affirm, but