Filed 3/6/13 P. v. Perry 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

STEVEN PAUL PERRY, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B241663 

(Super. Ct. No. 2009025996) 

(Ventura County) 

 Steven Paul Perry appeals a judgment following his conviction of three 

counts of indecent exposure, with findings of prior indecent exposure convictions and 

service of four prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, §§ 314, subd. 1, 667.5, subd. (b).)1

 

 We appointed counsel to represent Perry in this appeal. After examination 

of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) We advised Perry that he had 30 days within which to personally 

submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. On January 16, 2013, 

we received a response from him contending that the trial court erred by: 1) denying his 

motion to dismiss the prosecution for lack of a speedy trial, and 2) permitting evidence of 

his six prior convictions for indecent exposure. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case and a 

brief discussion of Perry's contentions. 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise. 
2 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On July 29, 2009, the Ventura County prosecutor charged Perry by felony 

complaint with three counts of indecent exposure with prior indecent exposure 

convictions. (§ 314, subd. 1.) The three counts concerned incidents occurring in May 

and June 2009 at a Ventura college and a Camarillo library. 

 On June 16, 2009, Perry was arrested in Los Angeles County for an act of 

indecent exposure committed at the University of California. On July 23, 2009, he was 

convicted of indecent exposure and sentenced to three years imprisonment. (§ 314, subd. 

1.) Prior to Perry's imprisonment, his parole officer notified Ventura County law 

enforcement that Perry was in custody. Ventura police officers then traveled to Los 

Angeles and met with Perry, who invoked his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona

(1966) 384 U.S. 436. Subsequently a warrant issued for Perry's arrest, but he was not 

prosecuted in Ventura County until his release from prison in January 2012. 

 On February 17, 2012, the Ventura County prosecutor filed an information 

charging Perry with three counts of indecent exposure. The information also alleged that 

Perry suffered prior indecent exposure convictions and served four prior prison terms. 

 On April 18, 2012, Perry filed a motion to dismiss the prosecution for lack 

of speedy prosecution. He argued that he suffered prejudice from the delay because he 

lost the opportunity for sentencing consecutive to the Los Angeles County conviction. 

The trial court relied upon People v. Lowe (2007) 40 Cal.4th 937, 945-946, and denied 

the motion. 

 At trial, the victims in each of the charged counts testified that Perry sat 

near them in the college or public library and began masturbating. Later, they identified 

Perry in photographic lineups. The public library security videotape also reflected Perry 

entering the library and walking near the area where the victims were sitting. 

 The jury convicted Perry of the charged counts. In a separate proceeding, 

he admitted serving four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, 

subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Perry to a two-year midterm for count 1, eight 

months consecutive for count 2, and eight months consecutive for count 3, plus four years 
3 

for the four prior prison terms served, for a total of seven years four months. The court 

imposed a $720 restitution fine, a $720 parole revocation restitution fine (stayed), ordered 

victim restitution, and awarded Perry 193 days of presentence custody credit. (§§ 1202.4, 

1202.45.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

 For several reasons, the trial court did not err by denying Perry's motion to 

dismiss the prosecution for lack of a speedy trial. First, Perry did not demand a speedy 

trial during his imprisonment pursuant to section 1381. Section 1381 provides that a 

defendant currently serving a sentence may demand resolution of a pending case within 

90 days or have the pending action dismissed. A proper demand is made by delivering 

"written notice of the place of his or her imprisonment . . . and his or her desire to be 

brought to trial or for sentencing." (§ 1381.) During Perry's imprisonment, an active 

warrant for his arrest in the present case existed and was noted in his prison records. 

 Second, our Supreme Court has held that a defendant's claim that a pretrial 

delay has prejudiced his ability to obtain a lesser sentence is not a cognizable ground to 

claim a constitutional speedy trial or due process violation. (People v. Lowe, supra, 40 

Cal.4th 937, 945-946.) "Consistent with the[] decisions construing the federal 

Constitution's right to a speedy trial, we reject defendant's contention that under the 

California Constitution's speedy trial right, a pending criminal charge must be dismissed 

solely because the delay in bringing the defendant to trial has cost the defendant the 

chance to serve the sentence on that charge concurrently with the sentence in another 

case." (Id. at p. 945.) 

II. 

 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting evidence of Perry's 

prior convictions for indecent exposure. Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a) 

provides: "In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, 

evidence of the defendant's commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made 

inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to [Evidence 
4 

Code] Section 352." The trial court expressly considered Evidence Code sections 1108 

and 352 and ruled that evidence of Perry's six prior indecent exposure convictions was 

admissible. The court also instructed with CALCRIM No. 1191 limiting the jury's 

consideration of the prior convictions as proof of Perry's guilt in the present case. 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 GILBERT, P.J. 

We concur: 

 YEGAN, J. 

 PERREN, J. 
5 

Bruce A. Young, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 Stephen K. Dunkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.