Filed 6/6/14 P. v. Perez CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. d
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064821
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN309800)
CAMILO RUIZ PEREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael
Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Morgan Ford, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Defendant Camilo Ruiz Perez's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
asking this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm the judgment.
INTRODUCTION
At the June 14, 2013 arraignment hearing, Perez─assisted by counsel and a
Spanish language interpreter─initialed and signed a guilty plea form indicating that, in
exchange for a 12-year stipulated prison term, he was pleading guilty to one count of
voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)) and admitting an allegation that in
committing the offense he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (an automobile)
within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). Perez admitted as the factual
basis for his guilty plea that he "unlawfully and without malice kill[ed] Joaquin Ruiz
Perez" and he "personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon during the course of the
manslaughter, to wit: a motor vehicle."
The court advised Perez, who again was assisted by counsel and a Spanish
language interpreter, of his constitutional rights and the potential consequences of his
plea, including the possible immigration consequences of the plea, and obtained Perez's
waivers of his rights. Perez pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter and
admitted the enhancement allegation. The court accepted the plea, finding Perez
voluntarily and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, and he understood the
consequences of his plea.
Thereafter, the court sentenced Perez to the stipulated term of 11 years in state
prison for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, plus a one-year consecutive term for
his admission of the enhancement allegation, for a total prison term of 12 years. The
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
court awarded a total of 409 days of credit for time served, and imposed a $3,360
restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended restitution fine in the same amount
under section 1202.45, a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 conviction
assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $154 criminal justice administration fee (Gov.
Code, § 29550.1).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
On September 2, 2012, after Perez, his brother Joaquin Ruiz Perez (the victim),
and a friend drank beer and played basketball at a school, Perez and his brother started
arguing after more drinking. That evening San Diego County Sheriff's Department
deputies were dispatched to the scene of a hit-and-run incident reported by Perez. When
they arrived on the scene, they found Joaquin dead on the sidewalk. The autopsy report
later showed that Joaquin's injuries were consistent with his having been struck on the
right side by a vehicle. Perez told the deputies he had not witnessed the incident and he
did not know the deceased.
The next day, a sheriff's deputy interviewing Joaquin's family recognized Perez.
Later, an eyewitness told the police he had seen a red Dodge pickup truck with a ladder
rack swerve twice toward a pedestrian. Sheriff's deputies went to the apartment complex
where Perez lived, located a red Dodge pickup truck with a ladder rack, and determined it
was registered to Perez. Perez later surrendered and said, "The accident, it's my fault."
2 As Perez entered a guilty plea before a preliminary hearing was held in this matter,
the following factual background is derived from the post-plea probation report, which
was based primarily on the police report.
3
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for
error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U. S. 738, counsel refers to the following as possible, but not
arguable, issues: (1) Did the court make the necessary advisements and obtain the
required waivers before accepting Perez's guilty plea? and (2) did the court grant Perez
the proper time credits and properly impose the fines and penalties?
We granted Perez permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not
responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and
Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues raised by
appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Perez has been
represented adequately by appellate counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
AARON, J.
4
People v. Perez CA4/1
Combined Opinion