Filed 6/17/26 P. v. Padilla CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065424
v. (Super. Ct. No. 22WF1924)
ANTONIO PADILLA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed.
Rachel P. Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General,
Robin Urbanski and Flavio Nominati, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Antonio Padilla appeals following his conviction for
second degree murder. His only contention on appeal relates to sentencing.
He argues the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike a prior
conviction for sentencing purposes.1 We find no error and affirm the
judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Because of the limited issues in this appeal, we need not set out
the facts in great detail. Suffice to say that defendant was found guilty of the
second degree murder of Regina L., an unhoused woman who was living in
Huntington Beach at the time of her death in July 2022. At the time, Padilla
was living in Huntington Beach, sleeping in a shed behind his mother’s home.
Padilla’s sister lived in their mother’s home. One day around the
end of June, she heard someone screaming in the backyard. A voice that
sounded like a woman yelled “‘help me, help me, he’s going to kill me, help,
help’ and kept screaming that.”
Padilla’s mother noticed a bad odor near the shed beginning in
early July, which grew progressively worse. Padilla’s sister noticed other
activity, including Padilla digging a hole in the backyard. She also saw him
attempting to pour cement into the hole. Padilla also erratically painted the
floor and sprayed bleach.
Eventually, Regina L.’s body was found buried in the backyard.
The body was on her knees in the hole in the ground, and her ankles and
1 In his opening brief, Padilla offered a second argument, contending
the $300 restitution fine imposed by the court was an abuse of discretion
pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. After his opening
brief was filed, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Kopp (2025)
19 Cal.5th 1. In his reply brief, Padilla concedes that in light of Kopp and the
facts of this case, his argument is no longer viable.
2
wrists were bound behind her back. The body was headless, and the head was
found underneath the body. A machete was found in a filing cabinet next to
the shed.
At trial, along with substantial forensic evidence, the jury heard
from clinical and forensic psychologist Lisa Grajewski, who conducted a
psychological assessment of Padilla. She diagnosed him with schizoaffective
disorder, depressed type. He also had substance abuse disorders that
included alcohol, methamphetamine, and cannabis.
Padilla was charged with murder following the police
investigation. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)2 It was further alleged that he
had a prior serious and violent felony conviction for assault with a deadly
weapon causing great bodily injury. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1), 667, subds.
(d), (e)(1), 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a).)
After the jury’s guilty verdict, the court sentenced Padilla to a
total term of 30 years to life in prison, reflecting an enhanced sentence for the
prior conviction. Padilla now appeals.
DISCUSSION
I.
STRIKE PRIOR
Padilla contends the court abused its discretion by failing to
strike his prior serious and violent felony.
A. Statutory Framework and Standard of Review
A defendant may bring a motion to strike a prior conviction for
sentencing purposes. (§ 1385.) Pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (a), “The
judge or magistrate may . . . order an action to be dismissed.” This provision
2 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3
permits “a judge to dismiss not only an entire case, but also a part thereof,
including the allegation that a defendant has previously been convicted of a
felony.” (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 508.)
“When a court strikes prior felony conviction allegations in this way, it ‘“does
not wipe out such prior convictions or prevent them from being considered in
connection with later convictions.”’ [Citation.] Instead, the order striking such
allegations simply embodies the court’s determination that, ‘“in the interest
of justice” defendant should not be required to undergo a statutorily
increased penalty which would follow from judicial determination of [the
alleged] fact.’” (Id. at p. 508.)
In deciding whether to grant such a motion, “the court in
question must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of
his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and
the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant
may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence
should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or
more serious and/or violent felonies.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th
148, 161.)
We review a court’s decision on a motion to strike a prior
conviction for abuse of discretion. (People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p.
162.) “A court’s discretion is not unlimited and ‘must be exercised within the
confines of the applicable legal principles.’ [Citations.] If a decision is
influenced by an erroneous understanding of applicable law, then a trial
court has not properly exercised its discretion.” (People v. Randolph (2018) 28
Cal.App.5th 602, 614.) Error also occurs where the court applied improper
factors. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378.) “The burden is on the
4
party challenging the sentence to clearly show the sentence was irrational or
arbitrary.” (People v. Leavel (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 823, 837.)
B. No Abuse of Discretion
Padilla’s prior strike conviction was for aggravated assault with a
great bodily injury enhancement. (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a).)
The probation report indicated Padilla’s prior convictions as an adult were
“numerous and of increasing seriousness,” and included 18 misdemeanors
and five felony convictions. He was on felony probation when he murdered
Regina L.
In his motion to strike the prior, Padilla argued he suffered from
schizoaffective disorder, alcoholism, and drug addiction at the time of the
murder. He noted his prior strike conviction occurred in 2009, when he was
22 years of age; he was 37 at the time the probation report in this case was
prepared.
At the hearing on Padilla’s motion, the court stated: “I
understand your arguments, but I’m going to deny your request to strike the
strike. Here are the reasons. The nature of the current offense is more serious
than other felonies. The current offense obviously is a violent felony. The
Defendant played a major role in the current offense.
“Even though the strike prior was 11[3] years from the date of
violation I don’t really find that to be extremely remote. So it’s not like we’re
talking about a 30-year-old strike prior. It’s 11 years old. Also I would note
that strike prior involved a crime of violence.”
The court continued: “[T]he strike prior involved a felony assault
and I believe it involved some injury. This crime did involve a high degree
3 The record suggests the prior was 15 years old rather than 11.
5
of cruelty and callousness the way that this whole case unraveled.
“What is really aggravating and why I’m not striking the strike is
that he committed the murder while he was on felony probation. . . . [¶] He’s
been to prison three times. He has an extensive criminal record. And also he
violated his probation numerous times and he himself converted a probation
non-state prison sentence into state prison sentences based on his violation of
those probations. Also his performance on parole was also extremely poor.
[¶] So those are the big reasons why I’m not striking the strike. I view Mr.
Padilla as a threat to public safety, and I’m going to make sure this state
prison commitment will ensure that no one else will suffer at his hand again.”
The record indicates the trial court was aware of its discretion. It
also indicates the court considered relevant facts and factors, including
Padilla’s lengthy criminal history and his performance on probation. Padilla
complains that the 15 year old prior strike was “remote” and should have
been considered mitigating. Remoteness itself, however, is insufficient.
(§ 667, subd. (c)(3); see People v. Mayfield (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1107.)
Further, it is not as if the prior conviction acted as a catalyst for Padilla to
change his ways. (Ibid.) Between the prior strike and the current one,
defendant incurred numerous additional felony and misdemeanor convictions
and served prison time. He was again on probation and violated it by killing
Regina L. in this case.
Padilla argues that his diagnosed mental illness and substance
abuse disorders should have been given more weight, and the court should
have recognized the state’s evolving policies from harsher sentencing in such
cases. But we agree with the People that in this case, “the opportunities for
such an approach have already been provided and exhausted.” Padilla has
been placed on probation multiple times, and there was no evidence he had
6
taken advantage of those opportunities to seek help instead of engaging in
further criminal behavior.
The trial court found Padilla’s extensive criminal record to be
disqualifying. We agree. Striking a prior is a form of leniency, and the court
did not abuse its discretion in deciding it was unwarranted in this case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MOORE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
DELANEY, J.
7