People v. Perez CA2/2

California Court of Appeal May 20, 2022 No. B310887Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition because the record of conviction did not refute his prima facie claim that he was convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Issues

Did the trial court err in summarily denying the defendant's section 1170.95 petition?
Was the defendant's jury instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine?
Is the defendant entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 1170.95?

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s denial was error because the record of conviction did not foreclose relief as a matter of law.”

“the record indicates that the jury in defendant’s case was instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory of liability”

“defendant has established a prima facie entitlement to relief and the matter must be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.”

Filed 5/20/22 P. v. Perez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B310887

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA005708) v.

EDDIE ANTHONY PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Paul Kleven, 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, Roberta L. Davis and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Eddie Anthony Perez (defendant) appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court’s denial was error because the record of conviction did not foreclose relief as a matter of law. We accordingly reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts2 A. The underlying crime On October 12, 1990, following a melee involving several people at an after-party, Gilbert Eugene Rosales (Rosales) called defendant, and asked defendant to pick up him up and to bring a gun “because there was trouble.” Defendant did as Rosales asked. When one of the people involved in the earlier fight approached defendant’s car, defendant opened the hatchback of the car and Rosales fired several shots from the rifle defendant brought. One of the shots hit one of those people, killing him. B. Charging, conviction and appeal The People charged defendant with (1) first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and (2) discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246). The People also alleged that defendant had furnished a firearm for the purpose of aiding and abetting another person to commit a felony (§ 12022.4), and that a

People v. Perez CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B310887

EDDIE ANTHONY PEREZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief