Filed 2/4/22 P. v. Pereda CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY PEREDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B312213

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.BA468197)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Lynne M. Hobbs, Judge. Dismissed.

Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Anthony Pereda appealed the denial of his 

petition for resentencing under former Penal Code, section 1170, 

subdivision (d)(1).1 Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief on 

appeal raising no issues and invoking People v. Serrano (2012) 

211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). We also have conducted an 

independent examination of the entire record pursuant to People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and conclude no arguable 

issues exist. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2019, the People filed an information charging 

appellant with two counts of attempted premeditated murder 

(§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) (counts 1 and 2), shooting at an inhabited 

dwelling (§ 246) (count 3), and in a separate incident, causing 

serious bodily injury while evading arrest in a vehicle (Veh. Code, 

§ 2800.3, subd. (a)) (count 4). The information further alleged 

that as to counts 1, 2, and 3, appellant personally used and 

discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, 

subds. (b)-(d)), and committed the offenses for the benefit of a 

criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) 

On September 30, 2020, appellant pled no contest to counts 

1 and 3, with count 1 amended to second degree attempted 

murder. Appellant also admitted the firearm allegation under 

section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The court sentenced appellant 

to a total of 17 years in prison, consisting of the middle term of 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated. At the time of appellant’s petition, 

section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) allowed the court to recall a 

sentence and resentence the defendant within 120 days of the 

date of commitment. Section 1170 was amended effective 

January 1, 2022. 
3

seven years on count 1, plus 10 years for the enhancement under 

section 12022.53, subdivision (b), and a concurrent term of three 

years on count 3. In addition, appellant waived 364 days of 

custody credit. 

On December 17, 2020, appellant moved for resentencing 

under former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). Relying on the Los 

Angeles County District Attorney’s Special Directive 20-08, dated 

December 7, 2020, appellant asserted that the District Attorney’s 

office was no longer pursuing sentence enhancements and would 

not oppose requests for resentencing under section 1170, 

subdivision (d)(1). Appellant asserted that had the Special 

Directive been in place at the time of his sentencing, his sentence 

would have been only seven years, without the 10-year 

enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b). He 

asserted that under the equal protection provisions of the United 

States and California Constitutions, he was entitled to the same 

treatment as those being sentenced after the Special Directive 

became effective. 

The People opposed appellant’s resentencing request. The 

People stated that appellant was a known member of the Street 

Villains gang, and in the crime at issue he and others drove to a 

house known to be a rival gang’s hangout. A woman was on the 

front porch with a three-year-old child playing next to her; five 

more people were inside the house. From the car, appellant fired 

at the house, hitting the three-year-old child “in the face with an 

exit wound near the right side of her neck.” The driver of the car 

was arrested about a week later; he was tried and convicted. 

Appellant was later arrested and charged. 

The People argued that section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) 

allows for a sentence modification “in the interest of justice,” 
4

which did not apply in this case. The People noted that appellant 

was sentenced on a negotiated plea deal, which included 

appellant’s admission of the firearm allegation. The opposition 

continued, “Given [appellant’s] maximum exposure of multiple 

life sentences in state prison, this settlement was reasonable and 

furthered justice in that [appellant] received a determinate 

sentence. Simply put: The People would not have agreed to a plea 

without acceptance of these terms.”

In a written response, appellant again asked the court to 

use its discretion to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) 

enhancement and sentence him to a term of seven years. 

Appellant argued that striking the enhancement would be in the 

interest of justice, because he was sentenced more harshly than 

he would have been had he been sentenced after the Special 

Directive was in place. He also reasserted his equal protection 

arguments. 

At the hearing, the prosecutor asserted that plea deals 

were not being negotiated differently in light of the Special 

Directive, and in this case, “we would still be seeking a sentence 

somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 years, and we would use 

special allegations to get there.” The prosecutor further argued 

that a sentence reduction would not be in the interest of justice. 

Appellant’s counsel submitted on the written motion. The court 

stated that it had read all the papers, “and the court declines to 

exercise its discretion, finding to do so is not within the interests 

of justice. So your motion is denied.” 

Appellant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues 

and invoking Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496. Under 
5

Serrano, when appointed counsel raises no issue in an appeal 

from a post-judgment proceeding, an appellate court may dismiss 

the appeal if the appellant fails to file a supplemental brief. (Id., 

at pp. 498, 503.) We directed counsel to send the record and a 

copy of the brief to appellant, and notified appellant of his right 

to respond within 30 days. We received no response. Under 

those procedures, we have no duty independently to review the 

record for reasonably arguable issues. (See People v. Cole (2020) 

52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, 

S264278.) We have nonetheless independently reviewed the full 

record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and are satisfied 

appellant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities 

of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P. J.

CURREY, J.