Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Perez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: E086167

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/9/26 P. v. Perez CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E086167

v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV22001310)

ERIC LEWIS PEREZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Katrina West,

Judge. Affirmed.

Shay Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1
INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Eric Lewis Perez appeals the trial court’s judgment, after

pleading no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code1, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)) and

admitting several sentencing enhancements. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

The victim was standing at a gas station, when defendant, who was unknown to

him, approached him, pulled out a knife, and stabbed him in the neck and arms.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 18, 2022, a felony complaint was filed against defendant, alleging that he

committed attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a), count 1), and that he personally

inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and personally used a deadly weapon

(§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The complaint further alleged he had one prior strike conviction.

(§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subd. (b)-(i).)

On July 25, 2022, defendant requested, and was referred for, Mental Disorder

Diversion (MDD). On August 26, 2022, the Department of Behavioral Health filed with

the court a form letter indicating that defendant had been evaluated and met the criteria

for the Community Supervised Treatment After Release program. A mental health report

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
indicated.

2 This brief summary of the facts is taken from the preliminary transcript, which
the parties stipulated would provide a factual basis for the plea, along with the police
reports and defendant’s prior rap sheet.

2
authored by Dr. Patricia Kirkish, who had performed a clinical interview of defendant

and reviewed his police records, was also filed.

Dr. Kirkish noted records revealing that, in 2020, defendant declined a mental

health screening and evaluation and refused any treatment for psychiatric issues. In

2021, he declined mental health services, and in 2022, he declined mental health

screenings multiple times. During an interview with a clinician in 2022, defendant

insisted he had no mental health issues. When asked about manic symptoms, defendant

denied any grandiose thoughts or periods of hyperactivity, but stated that when he went

without sleep, he became paranoid and secluded himself. While in prison in 2022,

defendant was diagnosed with an “Unspecified Mood Disorder.” As to substance use,

defendant said he started drinking alcohol at age seven and subsequently smoked

marijuana and used methamphetamine, abused phencyclidine, and used cocaine.

Dr. Kirkish observed that, throughout the interview, defendant was “alert and

oriented to reality.” However, she also noted that he elaborated on “persecutory,

paranoid delusions” and hallucinations. Dr. Kirkish opined that a residential recovery

program would be helpful for defendant, noting that he functioned with a normal

intellectual range.

On September 30, 2022, the court conducted an MDD hearing. Although it was

“convinced that [defendant] suffer[ed] from a qualifying mental illness including

substance abuse disorder and schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” and “the mental illness

3
probably had a significant impact on this crime,” the court concluded he would pose a

risk of danger to public safety. The court denied defendant’s request without prejudice.

On May 8, 2023, an information was filed, alleging the same charge and

enhancements as the felony complaint.

On September 12, 2023, defendant requested MDD again.

On December 22, 2023, the court held another MDD and denied defendant’s

request, expressing concern about his criminal history, lack of insight into his mental

illness, and dangerousness.

On March 8, 2024, a first amended information was filed, alleging the same

charge and enhancements as before, and adding the allegation that defendant had a prior

serious felony conviction. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).)

On March 7, 2025, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to

attempted murder without premeditation, which was added as count 2, and admitted the

prior serious felony conviction, the prior strike, and the use of a deadly weapon.

On April 8, 2025, pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to

the low term of five years on count 2, doubled pursuant to the prior strike, plus a

consecutive five years for the prior felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a

consecutive one year on the weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), for a total of

16 years in state prison. The court dismissed the remaining charge and allegations.

On May 19, 2025, defendant filed a notice of appeal without a request for a

certificate of probable cause.

4
DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant can seek the dismissal

of all enhancements and receive a base term of five years; and (2) whether the trial court

properly denied his request for mental health diversion. Counsel has also requested this

court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.

RAPHAEL
J.

5