Filed 9/21/21 P. v. Lopez CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159355 v. CESAR LOPEZ, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 219514) Defendant and Lopez. In February 2013, Cesar Lopez was charged by the San Francisco District Attorney with one count of felony stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a).)1 After he pleaded not guilty, a jury convicted him of the charge on May 13, 2013. The court suspended sentence and granted Lopez probation on July 3, 2013. On August 18, 2015 we affirmed the judgment, rejecting Lopez’s claim that his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence.2 (People v. Lopez (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 436, review den. Dec. 9, 2015.) 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Our 2015 opinion describes the facts of Lopez’s offense at considerable 2 length. As the facts are not essential to our analysis here, suffice it to summarize them as follows: Lopez’s 10-year obsession with his victim, Angie, began when she was 16 and he was about 26, and continued relentlessly for many years while she was a college student and thereafter, despite the assistance she obtained from the police and her repeated efforts to stop him. 1 On February 22, 2019, after he successfully completed five years of probation, Lopez filed a motion in propria persona3 to vacate his 2013 conviction of felony stalking pursuant to section 1473.7, which allows persons “no longer imprisoned or restrained” to prosecute a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence if “[t]he conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential Lopez told Angie he knew where she lived and where she went, and repeatedly refused to accept her attempts to end what he considered their relationship. After Angie ceased communicating with Lopez, he maintained a presence in her life by sending packages and oblique but ominous messages to her at her mother’s address. Lopez ignored Angie’s increasing pleas to leave her alone even after the intervention of the police. Although he never explicitly threatened her with violence, Angie testified that “she was ‘afraid for myself’ and ‘needed people around me to know what was going on. . . . I didn’t know what was going to happen and I felt in fear for my safety.’ ” (People v. Lopez, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 445.) Angie repeatedly came across Lopez near her home and found him watching her from a distance or suddenly appearing close to her. (Id. at pp. 441–443.) In 2012, Lopez constructed a large “labyrinth” in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals