California Court of Appeal: People v. Perez Filed

On September 16, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, filed an opinion in *People v. Perez*, explicitly stating it is "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS."

This filing signifies that the California Court of Appeal has rendered a decision in a criminal case involving the State of California and an individual named Perez. Crucially, the opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published, as explicitly stated in the excerpt. This designation is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), which strictly prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on such opinions, with very limited exceptions outlined in rule 8.1115(b). The specific details of the case or its outcome are not provided, but the non-publication status is the central legal development.

For California legal practitioners, this designation carries profound legal significance. Unlike the federal system where unpublished opinions may sometimes be cited for persuasive value, California's Rule 8.1115(a) creates a near-absolute bar against citing or relying on non-published opinions. This rule is designed to ensure that only opinions deemed to have precedential value—those that establish new legal principles, modify existing ones, or apply established law to novel facts—contribute to the official body of California case law. The strictness of this rule means that the *People v. Perez* opinion, regardless of its reasoning or findings, cannot be used as binding or even persuasive authority in future cases, except under the narrow circumstances of rule 8.1115(b).

The legal context is rooted in the California state court system, where the Court of Appeal serves as the intermediate appellate court. Rule 8.1115 is a cornerstone of California appellate practice, reflecting a policy choice to control the growth of published precedent. The exceptions in rule 8.1115(b) are highly specific, typically allowing citation only for purposes of establishing res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case, or in criminal cases, to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The key parties are the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, and the litigants, identified as "People" (representing the State of California in a criminal prosecution) and Perez.

Practitioners in California must exercise extreme caution and diligence regarding unpublished opinions. Citing an unpublished opinion outside the narrow exceptions of Rule 8.1115(b) can lead to judicial admonishment, sanctions, or a court's refusal to consider the argument. Therefore, attorneys should always verify the publication status of any opinion before incorporating it into their legal arguments or briefs. While unpublished opinions might offer insights into judicial thinking or factual patterns, they cannot form the basis of a legal argument intended to bind or persuade a court. This rule underscores the critical importance of focusing on published, precedential authority when practicing in California.