People v. Perez CA2/5 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/7/24 P. v. Perez CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B333789
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. VA155232)
MARIAH PEREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Maria Davalos, Judge. Affirmed.
Miriam K. Billington, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
On August 4, 2020, Valerie P. (Valerie) said hello to Jessie
Cortes (Cortes), a male acquaintance who walked past her with a
bicycle. A few seconds later, Valerie heard a woman say, “Don’t
say hi to my man.” Valerie turned around, and defendant and
appellant Mariah Perez (defendant) stabbed her in the arm with
a knife. A passerby who witnessed the stabbing provided aid to
Valerie and called 911. Valerie’s injury required surgery, and she
was still suffering from the effects of the injury at the time of
trial, more than two years later.
Defendant was tried on a charge of assault with a deadly
weapon for stabbing Valerie. The jury convicted her and found
true several sentencing allegations: that defendant inflicted great
bodily injury, that the crime involved great violence and great
bodily harm, and that defendant was armed with and used a
weapon at the time of the commission of the offense. The trial
court sentenced defendant to the mid-term of three years in state
prison for the assault conviction and three more years in prison
for the great bodily injury enhancement allegation. The court
awarded defendant 428 days of actual custody credit and 64 days
of conduct credit, for a total of 492 days of credit.
Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and
this court appointed counsel to represent her. After examining
the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On
May 13, 2024, this court advised defendant she had 30 days to
personally submit any contentions or issues she wanted us to
consider. We received no response.
We have examined the appellate record, and we are
satisfied defendant’s attorney on appeal has complied with the
2
responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists.1 (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 122-24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOOR, J. KIM, J.
1
Our review of the record reveals an apparent error in
calculating defendant’s custody credits. The record reflects
defendant was in custody from the date of her arrest (March 21,
2021) until the date she posted a bail bond (June 29, 2021), which
amounts to 101 actual days of custody. After defendant failed to
appear for a hearing in October 2021, her bail was forfeited and a
bench warrant was issued. Defendant was remanded to custody
on September 21, 2022, where she remained until she was
sentenced on September 1, 2023; this adds up to 346 additional
actual days of custody. Adding the two period of custody results
in 447 days of actual credit, but the trial court awarded only 428
days. In the absence of other arguable issues (and we see none),
correction of defendant’s credits is appropriately addressed in the
trial court. (Pen. Code, § 1237.1.)
3