Filed 8/13/26 P. v. Perez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H052393
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 22CR007240)
v.
ARMANDO ALEMAN PEREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Armando Aleman Perez pleaded no contest pursuant to a plea
agreement to four counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years.
The trial court sentenced Perez to the stipulated term of 30 years in prison.
On appeal, Perez’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issues. This
court notified Perez of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within
30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from Perez.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106 (Kelly), we have carefully reviewed the entire record and have determined that there
are no arguable issues on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to
Perez. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
In 2003, a girl reported to police that Perez repeatedly engaged in sexual acts with
her while Perez’s girlfriend was babysitting her. The girl was about seven years old
when the acts began and she reported that they lasted for about three years. Law
enforcement then interviewed the girl’s younger sister, who reported an instance in which
Perez “got on top of her, and he started humping her” when she was five or six years old.
Nineteen years later, the woman who had first reported Perez’s acts to police as a
girl contacted police to ask what happened to Perez. Law enforcement investigated the
matter, and both the woman and her younger sister told law enforcement about Perez’s
acts when they were children. The older sister made a pretext phone call in which Perez
made some incriminating statements while at times denying that anything inappropriate
occurred.
The prosecution charged Perez by information with seven counts: oral copulation
of a child 10 years of age or under (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); count 1);2 four counts
of forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 2-
5); attempted lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 years (§§ 664, 288, subd. (a);
count 6); and lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); count 7). Pursuant to a plea
agreement, Perez pleaded no contest to three of the forcible lewd act with a child counts,
counts 2 through 4. The trial court sentenced Perez to the stipulated sentence of 30 years,
consisting of the upper term of 10 years for count 2 and consecutive upper term sentences
of 10 years for each of the two remaining counts.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation later advised the trial court that
Perez’s sentence appeared to be erroneous, because the upper term for a violation of
section 288, subdivision (b)(1) at the time Perez committed the offenses for which he was
1
The factual background is taken from preliminary examination testimony and the
probation officer’s presentence report.
2
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
sentenced was eight years. As a result, the trial court granted Perez’s motion to withdraw
his no contest pleas to counts 2 through 4. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Perez then
pleaded no contest to all four forcible lewd act with a child counts, counts 2 through 5.
The trial court sentenced Perez to the stipulated term of 30 years, consisting of the upper
term of eight years for count 2, consecutive upper term sentences of eight years for each
of counts 3 and 4, and a consecutive middle term sentence of six years for count 5.
Perez timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have carefully reviewed the entire record. We conclude there is no arguable issue on
appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to Perez. (Wende, supra, at
pp. 441-443.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
3
_______________________________
Greenwood, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
___________________________________________
Grover, J.
______________________________________
Danner, J.
H052393 The People v. Perez