Filed 9/16/26 P. v. Perez CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B345929
(Super. Ct. No. 24ARCF01910)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
SAUL PEREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Saul Perez appeals a judgment following his jury conviction
for assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)
(1).) The trial court found certain aggravating factors true, and
sentenced Perez to three years in prison. Perez contends the trial
court erred when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 372
(flight showing a consciousness of guilt). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In December 2024, Sky King was walking his dog at Will
Rogers State Beach. He noticed that there were trash cans that
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
“were pushed over.” He picked a trash can up and started to
walk home. King then saw Perez “going through trash cans,
breaking bottles and screaming at the top of his lungs . . .” Perez
was 50 feet away from him.
Perez began walking toward King. He screamed at a
couple walking by him, rummaged through another trash can,
and broke bottles. Perez then “started screaming at” King,
approached him, and “pulled out a huge knife.” King testified
that Perez “started trying to stab me.” “He got closer, probably
like maybe five to ten feet away and started stabbing at me, and I
backed up, threw my hands up and started basically yelling at
him to, ‘walk away, walk away, get back’ and . . . that’s when he
started walking the other way.”
King called 911 but he “couldn’t get a hold of anybody.” He
“flagged down” a lifeguard and told him there was a man with a
knife that is going to hurt someone.
The police arrived and interviewed King. Police officers
located Perez on the beach about a mile away from the area
where Perez had assaulted King. They brought King to that area
and conducted a “field show-up.” King identified Perez. The
police found a knife in Perez’s backpack. King identified the
knife as the one Perez used in the attack. The police arrested
Perez 15 minutes after King called 911.
The People charged Perez with one count of assault with a
deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) During trial in a proceeding
outside the presence of jurors, the trial court informed counsel
that “there might be” a need to instruct the jury on “the issue of
whether the defendant fled.”
The trial court asked counsel, “[H]ow far was the spot from
where the incident occurred” and where Perez “was actually
2
found?” The prosecutor responded that the police officer
“testified it was about a mile.” The court said: “Because of that
evidence, I think . . . there would be an instruction on that. [¶] I
will prepare a set of instructions, and then both counsel can make
whatever objections they feel are appropriate.” The court
ultimately selected CALCRIM No. 372, the “Defendant’s Flight”
instruction and instructed the jury. Defense counsel did not
object to the flight instruction.
The jury found Perez guilty of assault. The trial court
found certain aggravating factors true, including that Perez was
armed with a weapon, his conduct indicated a serious danger to
society, he suffered prior convictions, and served a prior prison
term. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a) & (b).) The court
sentenced Perez to three years in prison.
DISCUSSION
Perez contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury
with CALCRIM No. 372 (flight showing a consciousness of guilt).
We disagree.
CALCRIM No. 372 provides: “If the defendant fled or tried
to flee immediately after the crime was committed or after he was
accused of committing the crime, that conduct may show that he
was aware of his guilt. If you conclude that the defendant fled or
tried to flee, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance
of that conduct. However, evidence that the defendant fled or
tried to flee cannot prove guilt by itself.”
A flight instruction “is statutorily required when flight
evidence is relied upon by the prosecution.” (People v. Howard
(2008) 42 Cal.4th 1000, 1020 (Howard); § 1127c.) “ ‘ “In general,
a flight instruction ‘is proper where the evidence shows that the
defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances
3
suggesting that his movement was motivated by a consciousness
of guilt.’ [Citations.] ‘ “[F]light requires neither the physical act
of running nor the reaching of a far-away haven. [Citation.]
Flight manifestly does require, however, a purpose to avoid being
observed or arrested.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Frazier (2024) 16 Cal.5th
814, 839.) We review Perez’s claim of instructional error de novo.
(People v. Wilson (2021) 11 Cal.5th 259, 295.)
We conclude the trial court did not err in instructing on
flight because “the jury could reasonably infer that the
defendant’s flight reflected consciousness of guilt.” (Howard,
supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1020.) When King called 911, Perez
walked a mile away to the beach. Perez also hid the knife in his
backpack. Fifteen minutes elapsed between the time King called
911 and the time Perez was arrested a mile away. The jury could
reasonably infer that Perez left the crime scene because of his
consciousness of guilt and desire to avoid being arrested.
In People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 126, our Supreme
Court held that a defendant’s act of walking a half mile away
from the scene and hiding the scissors that had been used in the
crime supported a finding of the defendant’s consciousness of
guilt. Here, Perez walked twice the distance than the defendant
in Jurado while King called 911, and he hid the knife in his
backpack.
Perez contends the instruction could lead jurors to conclude
that he committed the assault charge. We disagree. The trial
court instructed jurors that “evidence the defendant fled
. . . cannot prove guilt by itself.” We presume the jury followed
this instruction. (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 427.)
4
Perez also contends the jury was confused because it asked
for clarification. But the jury asked for clarification on the
assault with a knife instruction, not the flight instruction.
Moreover, any instructional error would be harmless. The
evidence the People presented was uncontradicted. Perez
concedes that the record shows “[a]t about three to five feet,
[Perez] thrust the knife in underhand stabbing motions toward
King, as if to stab him in the gut.” In our view, it “is not
reasonably probable a result more favorable to defendant would
have been reached absent” the alleged error. (People v. Silva
(1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 628; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818,
836.)
Perez also contends his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance by not objecting to the flight instruction. Again, we
disagree. Because the flight instruction here was proper, Perez
cannot establish that his counsel’s performance was prejudicially
deficient. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
CODY, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
5
William L. Sadler, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
David Ross Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Zachary John
Crvarich, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.