People v. Alvarez CA4/2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

In 2004, defendant entered a store where he told the cashier to give him all the

money “‘that’s in there.’” The cashier refused. Defendant threatened the cashier and

said he would return. (Alvarez, supra, E039133.)

2 “If the defendant . . . files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

3 We take judicial notice of this court’s opinion from defendant’s appeal from the judgment (People v. Alvarez (Mar. 29, 2007, E039133) [nonpub. opn.] (Alvarez)), of which the People requested the court below take judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 459.) Although we recount the facts as recited in Alvarez, we are cognizant that Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) limited the use of prior appellate opinions by trial judges ruling on section 1172.6 petitions in most instances to “‘the procedural history of the case recited.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 292; accord, People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 988, fn. omitted [“If such evidence may not be considered…