Filed 5/25/21 P. v. Perez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H047878 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 216335, C1647669) v. ARTURO MAYA PEREZ, Defendant and Appellant. I. INTRODUCTION In case No. 216335, defendant Arturo Maya Perez pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a)).1 In case No. C1647669, defendant pleaded no contest to carjacking (§ 215), driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).2 Defendant also admitted four prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 43 years to life. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. Although the two cases were consolidated by the trial court before defendant’s 2 no contest pleas, the minute orders post-consolidation continue to reflect separate case numbers. Defendant appealed. This court reversed the judgment and remanded both matters for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 1385 in each case regarding whether to strike defendant’s prior serious felony conviction for the purposes of sentencing him under section 667, subdivision (a). (People v. Perez (May 2, 2019, H045775) [nonpub. opn.], p. 18 (Perez).)3 At the subsequent resentencing hearing, the trial court struck the prior serious felony allegation in each case and also struck the prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 33 years to life. In the current appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant submitted a letter that we have considered. As we will explain, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record, considered defendant’s contentions, and determined that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment. II. BACKGROUND Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. A. The Offenses4 In August 2016, when the victim returned to her residence, she noticed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals