People v. Perez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1101215
- Trial judge
- Joshlyn R. Pulliam
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court denied Perez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, determining he was ineligible because he was convicted as the actual perpetrator of the homicide. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“Our discretionary independent review of the record does not reveal any arguable issues for reversal of the order denying Perez’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 because he was tried and convicted of first degree murder as the actual killer.” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate review when counsel in a section 1172.6 appeal cannot identify arguable issues, requiring independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Cited to distinguish the procedural framework for appointed counsel appeals in direct appeals from the specific procedure for section 1172.6 appeals.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Cited to distinguish the procedural framework for appointed counsel appeals in direct appeals from the specific procedure for section 1172.6 appeals.
The appellate opinion: sound — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court summarily denied John Anthony Perez's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage because the jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting, natural and probable consequences, or felony murder, and Perez was tried and convicted as the actual killer of first degree murder with a personal and intentional firearm discharge finding. The Court of Appeal, after appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief and Perez filed a supplemental brief raising only juror misconduct claims, conducted a discretionary independent review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that Perez was ineligible as a matter of law because he was tried and convicted as the actual killer and the jury received no aiding and abetting, natural and probable consequences, or felony murder instructions.“Our discretionary independent review of the record does not reveal any arguable issues for reversal of the order denying Perez’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 because he was tried and convicted of first degree murder as the actual killer.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The record of conviction, including the jury instructions, showed no theory of imputed malice was presented to the jury; Perez was the sole defendant, tried as the actual perpetrator, and the jury found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. Under People v. Lewis and the text of section 1172.6, a petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law where the record of conviction conclusively establishes he was convicted as the actual killer, so summary denial without an evidentiary hearing was proper. The court did not state a standard of review explicitly, though prima facie eligibility determinations are generally reviewed de novo. |
Refusal to consider Perez's supplemental brief claims of juror misconduct, bias, or compromise verdict as outside the scope of an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition.“To the extent Perez may have a remedy to challenge his conviction, it will be by habeas corpus and not this statutory resentencing procedure.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court A section 1172.6 proceeding is a limited statutory mechanism for retroactive relief from changes to murder liability under Senate Bill No. 1437; it is not a vehicle for relitigating trial error such as juror misconduct. The court correctly declined to reach those claims and pointed Perez toward habeas corpus. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions; when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the court must inform the defendant he may file a supplemental brief, evaluate any issues raised, and may but need not conduct independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the independent-review procedure for appointed counsel's no-issue briefs on direct criminal appeal; noted as inapplicable to postconviction resentencing appeals.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage the trial court may rely on the record of conviction, including jury instructions, to determine eligibility under section 1172.6, and may deny the petition only where the record conclusively refutes the petitioner's allegations as a matter of law; the court did not cite it but its summary denial analysis is consistent with it.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applied Delgadillo, properly declined to treat juror misconduct claims as cognizable in a section 1172.6 appeal, and reached the right result because the record of conviction shows Perez was convicted as the actual killer with no imputed-malice instructions. It did not cite People v. Lewis or articulate the prima facie standard, and did not state a standard of review, which are minor gaps in an otherwise defensible disposition.
Opinion
Filed 8/22/25 P. v. Perez CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084683
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1101215 )
JOHN ANTHONY PEREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. John Anthony Perez, in pro. per.; and Raymond Mark DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
John Anthony Perez appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. A jury convicted Perez in 2012 of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). He was the only person charged and was tried as the actual perpetrator of the homicide. After Perez admitted allegations of two prior serious and violent felony convictions, the court sentenced him to 75 years to life for murder (25 years to life multiplied by three for the two prior strike convictions) plus 25 years to life for the firearm use enhancement for a total indeterminate term of 100 years to life. The court stayed an enhancement under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). On Perez’s direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment in part, but reversed the portion of the judgment adjudicating the truth of the allegation Perez incurred two serious and violent prior felony convictions and his motion to strike the priors because the court did not properly advise Perez of his right to trial, right to silence, or right to confront witnesses before accepting his admission of the prior convictions. We remanded for further proceedings on that issue. (People v. Perez (Sept. 11, 2014, D066231) [nonpub. opn.].) After further proceedings in 2015, where the court properly advised Perez of his rights and he knowingly waived them, Perez again admitted the prior strikes. The court struck one of the prior strikes and resentenced Perez to a total indeterminate term of 75 years to life. In 2024, Perez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, asserting he could not presently be convicted of murder after the ameliorative amendments to the law effective January 1, 2019, under Senate Bill No. 1437. He requested appointment of counsel. The court appointed counsel and set a prima facie hearing.
2 The court granted the People’s request for judicial notice of the jury instructions from the original trial and the opinion from the direct appeal as well as all the trial court’s files and records. At the prima facie hearing, defense counsel confirmed the court did not instruct the jury regarding aiding and abetting, natural and probable consequences, or felony murder. The People agreed and argued Perez was, therefore, ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law under section 1172.6. The court also agreed and summarily denied the petition on the basis that Perez was ineligible for resentencing under the statute. Perez appealed. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 222 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and included a concise recitation of facts regarding the denial of the resentencing petition. Counsel asked this court to independently review the record for error, although recognizing that the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 do not apply in cases of appeals from denial of postconviction petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6. (Delgadillo, at p. 222.) Consistent with the Delgadillo procedure, we offered Perez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He responded with a supplemental brief. Perez’s supplemental brief does not raise any issue that is cognizable on appeal from the denial of a postjudgment petition for resentencing. Instead, he raises for the first time a new issue alleging juror misconduct, bias, or a compromise verdict to challenge his conviction. To the extent Perez may have a remedy to challenge his conviction, it will be by habeas corpus and not this statutory resentencing procedure.
3 Our discretionary independent review of the record does not reveal any arguable issues for reversal of the order denying Perez’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 because he was tried and convicted of first degree murder as the actual killer. He is, therefore, ineligible for resentencing relief. DISPOSITION The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12