People v. Perry CA2/2

Filed 12/15/22 P. v. Perry CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B319583

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA230628) v.

MANUEL PERRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: In 2003, a jury found defendant and appellant Manuel Perry guilty of two counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),1 two counts of robbery (§ 211), and two counts of kidnapping for ransom (§ 209, subd. (a)). As to the kidnapping for ransom counts, the jury found true allegations that the victims suffered bodily harm or were intentionally confined in a manner that exposed them to a substantial likelihood of death.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

(§ 209, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive prison terms of life without the possibility of parole. On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment but directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to strike a reference to a parole revocation fine. (People v. Gomez (Aug. 18, 2004, B168688) [nonpub. opn.], p. 31.) On August 4, 2021, defendant, in propria persona, filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95).2 The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant. The People filed an opposition to the petition. Appointed counsel submitted on defendant’s petition. Defendant personally filed a separate response. On February 25, 2022, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that defendant was not convicted of a homicide offense and, therefore, was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6. Defendant timely appealed from the ruling. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). We then notified defendant that he could personally submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. Defendant submitted a supplemental brief. Because this appeal is from an order denying postjudgment relief, we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record for arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020)