Court Opinion

ID: 9372129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:02:25.604604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.216832
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/17/23 P. v. Perez CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                            THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     (Tehama)
                                        ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C096397

           v.                                                                   (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CR002957,
                                                                                        21CR003050)
 PERRY JOSEPH PEREZ, JR.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Perry Joseph Perez, Jr., pleaded guilty to burglary, receiving a stolen
GMC Sierra truck, and receiving a stolen Toyota Corolla. The trial court sentenced him
to the upper term of six years for the burglary, and two concurrent terms of two years
each for receiving the stolen GMC Sierra truck and the Toyota Corolla.
         Defendant now contends (1) that under Penal Code section 654, 1 the trial court
should have stayed his sentence for receiving the stolen GMC Sierra because he stole that
truck in the burglary, and (2) if that sentence is stayed, we should remand the matter for
reconsideration of the restitution fine.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
       We conclude defendant has not established section 654 error. Accordingly, we do
not address his restitution contention. We will affirm the judgment.
                                     BACKGROUND
       In case No. 21CR002957 (case 2957), a complaint charged defendant
with burglary (§ 459 -- count 1), receiving a stolen GMC Sierra truck (§ 496d -- count 2),
receiving a stolen Dodge Ram truck (§ 496d -- count 3), taking the Dodge Ram truck
(Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) -- count 4), and receiving a stolen wallet (§ 496,
subd. (a) -- count 5). The complaint alleged defendant had a prior felony conviction
(§ 666.5.) In case No. 21CR003050 (case 3050), a complaint alleged defendant received
a stolen Toyota Corolla (§ 496d) and had a prior felony conviction. The prosecution
moved to consolidate the cases and asserted the following facts for the first case: that in
November 2021, the victim reported a burglary at her residence; personal items were
stolen from the house and her late father’s Dodge Ram truck was taken; that evening,
officers responded to a report of a stolen GMC Sierra truck; the officers found defendant
in the driver’s seat of the GMC Sierra, and in searching defendant, they found items
taken from the burglary including keys to the Dodge Ram.
       In case 2957, defendant pleaded guilty to the burglary and to receiving the stolen
GMC Sierra truck. And in case 3050, defendant pleaded guilty to receiving the stolen
Toyota Corolla. The trial court received police reports as the factual bases for the pleas
but neither are contained in the record.
       The probation report described the offenses in case 2957 in relevant part as
follows: that on November 19, 2021, officers located a stolen vehicle parked at a gas
station. Defendant and his passenger were detained. Defendant carried an ignition key
belonging to another vehicle, and the passenger carried a driver’s license belonging to the
victim’s deceased father. The victim had reported a residential burglary that day; a truck
had been stolen. The victim arrived on scene and recognized the ignition key as
belonging to her father’s truck that had been stolen during the burglary.

                                             2
       The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years for the burglary,
and two concurrent terms of two years each for receiving the stolen GMC Sierra truck
and the Toyota Corolla. The trial court explained: “The other two felonies [receiving a
stolen GMC Sierra and receiving a stolen Toyota Corolla], the one in the first case along
with the first degree, the Court will find that was a crime committed, in essence, at the
same time and the same thing in the second case. So, those, instead of being consecutive,
will be concurrent.”
                                       DISCUSSION
       Defendant contends the sentence for receiving the stolen GMC Sierra truck must
be stayed under section 654 because he stole that truck in the burglary. The Attorney
General counters that defendant abandoned this argument when he entered into the plea
agreement with a maximum term, and the GMC Sierra was not the truck stolen in the
burglary. We address the merits and conclude defendant has not established error under
section 654.
       Section 654, subdivision (a) provides: “An act or omission that is punishable in
different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such
provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one
provision. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for
the same act or omission under any other.” Under this provision, a defendant cannot be
sentenced for both burglary and receiving stolen property taken during that burglary.
(People v. Landis (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1254.)
       Nevertheless, “ ‘[p]erhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the
judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to
affirmatively demonstrate error.’ [Citation.] ‘ “We must indulge in every presumption to
uphold a judgment, and it is defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively demonstrate
error -- it will not be presumed. [Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] . . . [A]ny

                                              3
uncertainty in the record must be resolved against the defendant. [Citations.]” (People v.
Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549.)
       The appellate record does not identify the GMC Sierra truck as the truck defendant
stole in the burglary. The complaint charged defendant with receiving a stolen GMC
Sierra truck and a Dodge Ram truck and alleged that he took the Dodge Ram truck
intending to deprive the owner of title and possession. Defendant pleaded guilty to
receiving the stolen GMC Sierra truck.
       The probation report said defendant was located with a stolen truck at a gas station
and that he had keys to another stolen truck, a truck stolen in the burglary, in his pocket.
It stated the truck stolen in the burglary was located at defendant’s home. But the
probation report does not identify the make or model of either truck, and the police
reports that might have identified the vehicles are not contained in the record. Nothing in
the plea colloquy or sentencing identifies the make or model of the truck stolen in the
burglary. The only document that sheds light on the identification of the trucks cuts
against defendant. Although it is not evidence, the prosecution’s motion to consolidate
the cases identified the truck stolen at the burglary as the Dodge Ram truck, not the GMC
Sierra truck.
       Defendant nevertheless argues three things that he claims establish the GMC
Sierra truck was stolen in the burglary: (1) the complaint charged receipt of the stolen
GMC Sierra truck as count 2 immediately following the count 1 burglary count, (2)
defendant was charged with taking the Dodge Ram truck in addition to receiving it,
suggesting it was the truck at the gas station and the GMC Sierra was the truck at his
home; and (3) the trial court said the receiving crimes were committed at the same time.
       Without more, the People’s exercise of discretion in ordering the charges in the
complaint does not establish that the GMC Sierra was stolen in the burglary; the
complaint alleged both trucks were stolen on the same day. Likewise, the People’s
exercise of prosecutorial discretion to charge defendant with taking one of the stolen

                                              4
trucks but not the other does not establish which truck was stolen in the burglary. Both
trucks were taken to another location, one to the gas station and the other to defendant’s
home. Finally, the trial court’s comment that receipt of the GMC Sierra and receipt of
the Toyota Corolla occurred at the same time does not establish which truck was stolen in
the burglary.
       Because defendant has not established that he stole the GMC Sierra in the
burglary, he has not established section 654 error. Accordingly, we do not address his
argument regarding the restitution fine.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                    /S/
                                                 MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
HULL, J.

                                             5