California Court of Appeal Mar 9, 2026 No. E086167Unpublished
Filed 3/9/26 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E086167
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV22001310)
ERIC LEWIS PEREZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Katrina West,
Judge. Affirmed.
Shay Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Eric Lewis Perez appeals the trial court’s judgment, after
pleading no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code1, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)) and
admitting several sentencing enhancements. We affirm.
On July 25, 2022, defendant requested, and was referred for, Mental Disorder
Diversion (MDD). On August 26, 2022, the Department of Behavioral Health filed with
the court a form letter indicating that defendant had been evaluated and met the criteria
for the Community Supervised Treatment After Release program. A mental health report
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
2 This brief summary of the facts is taken from the preliminary transcript, which the parties stipulated would provide a factual basis for the plea, along with the police reports and defendant’s prior rap sheet.
2
authored by Dr. Patricia Kirkish, who had performed a clinical interview of defendant
and reviewed his police records, was also filed.
Dr. Kirkish noted records revealing that, in 2020, defendant declined a mental
health screening and evaluation and refused any treatment for psychiatric issues. In
2021, he declined mental health services, and in 2022, he declined mental health
screenings multiple times. During an interview with a clinician in 2022, defendant
insisted he had no mental health issues. When asked about manic symptoms, defendant
denied any grandiose thoughts or periods of hyperactivity, but stated that when he went
without sleep, he became paranoid and secluded himself. While in prison in 2022,
defendant was diagnosed with an “Unspecified Mood Disorder.” As to substance use,
defendant said he started drinking alcohol at age seven and subsequently smoked
marijuana and used methamphetamine, abused phencyclidine, and used cocaine.
Dr. Kirkish observed that, throughout the interview, defendant was “alert and
oriented to reality.” However, she also noted that he elaborated on “persecutory,
paranoid delusions” and hallucinations. Dr. Kirkish opined that a residential recovery
program would be helpful for defendant, noting that he functioned with a normal
intellectual range.
On September 30, 2022, the court conducted an MDD hearing. Although it was
“convinced that [defendant] suffer[ed] from a qualifying mental illness including
substance abuse disorder and schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” and “the mental illness
3
probably had a significant impact on this crime,” the court concluded he would pose a
risk of danger to public safety. The court denied defendant’s request without prejudice.
On May 8, 2023, an information was filed, alleging the same charge and
enhancements as the felony complaint.
On September 12, 2023, defendant requested MDD again.
On December 22, 2023, the court held another MDD and denied defendant’s
request, expressing concern about his criminal history, lack of insight into his mental
illness, and dangerousness.
On March 8, 2024, a first amended information was filed, alleging the same
charge and enhancements as before, and adding the allegation that defendant had a prior
serious felony conviction. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).)
On March 7, 2025, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to
attempted murder without premeditation, which was added as count 2, and admitted the
prior serious felony conviction, the prior strike, and the use of a deadly weapon.
On April 8, 2025, pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to
the low term of five years on count 2, doubled pursuant to the prior strike, plus a
consecutive five years for the prior felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a
consecutive one year on the weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), for a total of
16 years in state prison. The court dismissed the remaining charge and allegations.
On May 19, 2025, defendant filed a notice of appeal without a request for a
certificate of probable cause.
4
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant can seek the dismissal
of all enhancements and receive a base term of five years; and (2) whether the trial court
properly denied his request for mental health diversion. Counsel has also requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS FIELDS J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the defendant can seek the dismissal of all enhancements and receive a base term of five years.
Whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for mental health diversion.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”