People v. Lucatero CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084608 · 2025-10-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD263891
Trial judge: Melinda J. Lasater
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Buchanan (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:39Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Lucatero's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding him ineligible because he was the direct perpetrator of the attempted murder and no natural and probable consequences instructions were given. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “Based on the record of conviction, the court found Lucatero was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The petition for resentencing was denied.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, stating it had conducted an independent review of the record and found no potentially meritorious issues for reversal. The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., abuse of discretion) but implies the trial court's factual findings regarding the record of conviction were sufficient to support the denial.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues exist, requesting the court to independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the standard for independent appellate review of the record when counsel identifies no issues, which the court applied by analogy to the Delgadillo brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Delgadillo/Wende framework for independent review. However, it is extremely brief and does not provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's denial was correct, relying solely on the statement that no meritorious issues were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Alexis Lucatero's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition after reviewing the record of conviction and finding the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or imputed-malice theories and that Lucatero was the direct perpetrator of the attempted murder. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record, found no arguably meritorious issues in the record or in Lucatero's pro. per. supplemental brief, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 on the ground that the record of conviction showed Lucatero was the direct perpetrator of attempted murder and the jury was not instructed on any now-invalid theory of imputed malice “The court found there were no jury instructions given on natural and probable consequences or implied malice based on the conduct of another person.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to a petitioner who could have been convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or another theory under which malice was imputed based solely on participation in a crime. Where the jury instructions in the record of conviction contain no such theory and the petitioner was tried and convicted as the actual perpetrator, the record of conviction conclusively refutes the petition's allegations and denial at the prima facie stage is proper. The opinion recites these findings and the appellate court's independent review found no error; nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court engaged in improper factfinding or weighed evidence rather than relying on the instructions given. The opinion does not state the standard of review and does not cite People v. Lewis, but its result is consistent with that authority.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, Wende/Anders procedures are not constitutionally required, but the Court of Appeal may exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error and must evaluate any issues raised in the defendant's own supplemental brief.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel in a first appeal of right files a brief identifying no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consider the record of conviction, including jury instructions, and may deny the petition only where the record conclusively refutes the petitioner's allegations as a matter of law without engaging in factfinding or weighing evidence; the correct citation is 11 Cal.5th 952.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Delgadillo procedure, independently reviewed the record, considered the pro. per. supplemental brief, and affirmed a denial that rests on the recognized ground that the jury instructions contained no natural-and-probable-consequences or imputed-malice theory. The opinion is defensible but minimal: it does not articulate the prima facie standard or the de novo standard of review from People v. Lewis, and it does not describe what specific constitutional claims the supplemental brief raised or why they fall outside the scope of a section 1172.6 proceeding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 10/8/25 P. v. Lucatero CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084608

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD263891)

ALEXIS LUCATERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed. Alexis Lucatero, in pro. per.; and Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Alexis Lucatero of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187) and several other felonies. The jury found Lucatero committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. The jury also found Lucatero personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Lucatero was sentenced to a term of 21 years in prison. Lucatero appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Lucatero (Mar. 28, 2018, D071581).) In April 2024, Lucatero filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court found there were no jury instructions given on natural and probable consequences or implied malice based on the conduct of another person. The court found Lucatero was the direct perpetrator of the attempted murder offense. Based on the record of conviction, the court found Lucatero was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The petition for resentencing was denied. Lucatero filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error in the same manner we would do if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have determined to exercise our discretion to make an independent review of the record for error. Accordingly, we decline to engage in further analysis of Delgadillo’s potential limitations for cases arising from denial of resentencing petitions under section 1172.6. We offered Lucatero the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a lengthy, wide-ranging document complaining of multiple constitutional errors. He has not, however demonstrated how those alleged constitutional errors would apply on this record. Although lengthy, 2 Lucatero’s brief does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. We have exercised our discretion and made an independent review of the record. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Lucatero on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Lucatero’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3 WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12