People v. Perez CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 9/16/26 P. v. Perez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B345929 (Super. Ct. No. 24ARCF01910) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

SAUL PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Saul Perez appeals a judgment following his jury conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a) (1).) The trial court found certain aggravating factors true, and sentenced Perez to three years in prison. Perez contends the trial court erred when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 372 (flight showing a consciousness of guilt). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2024, Sky King was walking his dog at Will Rogers State Beach. He noticed that there were trash cans that 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. “were pushed over.” He picked a trash can up and started to walk home. King then saw Perez “going through trash cans, breaking bottles and screaming at the top of his lungs . . .” Perez was 50 feet away from him. Perez began walking toward King. He screamed at a couple walking by him, rummaged through another trash can, and broke bottles. Perez then “started screaming at” King, approached him, and “pulled out a huge knife.” King testified that Perez “started trying to stab me.” “He got closer, probably like maybe five to ten feet away and started stabbing at me, and I backed up, threw my hands up and started basically yelling at him to, ‘walk away, walk away, get back’ and . . . that’s when he started walking the other way.” King called 911 but he “couldn’t get a hold of anybody.” He “flagged down” a lifeguard and told him there was a man with a knife that is going to hurt someone. The police arrived and interviewed King. Police officers located Perez on the beach about a mile away from the area where Perez had assaulted King. They brought King to that area and conducted a “field show-up.” King identified Perez. The police found a knife in Perez’s backpack. King identified the knife as the one Perez used in the attack. The police arrested Perez 15 minutes after King called 911. The People charged Perez with one count of assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) During trial in a proceeding outside the presence of jurors, the trial court informed counsel that “there might be” a need to instruct the jury on “the issue of whether the defendant fled.” The trial court asked counsel, “[H]ow far was the spot from where the incident occurred” and where Perez “was actually 2 found?” The prosecutor responded that the police officer “testified it was about a mile.” The court said: “Because of that evidence, I think . . . there would be an instruction on that. [¶] I will prepare a set of instructions, and then both counsel can make whatever objections they feel are appropriate.” The court ultimately selected CALCRIM No. 372, the “Defendant’s Flight” instruction and instructed the jury. Defense counsel did not object to the flight instruction. The jury found Perez guilty of assault. The trial court found certain aggravating factors true, including that Perez was armed with a weapon, his conduct indicated a serious danger to society, he suffered prior convictions, and served a prior prison term. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a) & (b).) The court sentenced Perez to three years in prison. DISCUSSION Perez contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 372 (flight showing a consciousness of guilt). We disagree. CALCRIM No. 372 provides: “If the defendant fled or tried to flee immediately after the crime was committed or after he was accused of committing the crime, that conduct may show that he was aware of his guilt. If you conclude that the defendant fled or tried to flee, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct. However, evidence that the defendant fled or tried to flee cannot prove guilt by itself.” A flight instruction “is statutorily required when flight evidence is relied upon by the prosecution.” (People v. Howard (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1000, 1020 (Howard); § 1127c.) “ ‘ “In general, a flight instruction ‘is proper where the evidence shows that the defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances 3 suggesting that his movement was motivated by a consciousness of guilt.’ [Citations.] ‘ “[F]light requires neither the physical act of running nor the reaching of a far-away haven. [Citation.] Flight manifestly does require, however, a purpose to avoid being observed or arrested.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Frazier (2024) 16 Cal.5th 814, 839.) We review Perez’s claim of instructional error de novo. (People v. Wilson (2021) 11 Cal.5th 259, 295.) We conclude the trial court did not err in instructing on flight because “the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant’s flight reflected consciousness of guilt.” (Howard, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1020.) When King called 911, Perez walked a mile away to the beach. Perez also hid the knife in his backpack. Fifteen minutes elapsed between the time King called 911 and the time Perez was arrested a mile away. The jury could reasonably infer that Perez left the crime scene because of his consciousness of guilt and desire to avoid being arrested. In People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 126, our Supreme Court held that a defendant’s act of walking a half mile away from the scene and hiding the scissors that had been used in the crime supported a finding of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Here, Perez walked twice the distance than the defendant in Jurado while King called 911, and he hid the knife in his backpack. Perez contends the instruction could lead jurors to conclude that he committed the assault charge. We disagree. The trial court instructed jurors that “evidence the defendant fled . . . cannot prove guilt by itself.” We presume the jury followed this instruction. (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427.)

4 Perez also contends the jury was confused because it asked for clarification. But the jury asked for clarification on the assault with a knife instruction, not the flight instruction. Moreover, any instructional error would be harmless. The evidence the People presented was uncontradicted. Perez concedes that the record shows “[a]t about three to five feet, [Perez] thrust the knife in underhand stabbing motions toward King, as if to stab him in the gut.” In our view, it “is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached absent” the alleged error. (People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 628; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) Perez also contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to the flight instruction. Again, we disagree. Because the flight instruction here was proper, Perez cannot establish that his counsel’s performance was prejudicially deficient. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

CODY, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

5 William L. Sadler, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________ David Ross Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Zachary John Crvarich, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.