People v. Solorza CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF132370
- Trial judge
- Joshlyn Pulliam
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Solorza's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was tried as a direct participant and did not establish a prima facie case for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after 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“The court found Solorza did not establish a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law and denied the petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no error, affirming the trial court's determination that the defendant was a direct participant and failed to meet the prima facie threshold for resentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief when no meritorious issues are identified, requesting the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Delgadillo protocol for independent review when appointed counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a summary disposition that relies entirely on the trial court's factual findings regarding direct participation without detailed legal analysis.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court denied Jose Alfredo Solorza's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding from the record of conviction that he was tried as a direct participant in a 2010 torture-murder and that the jury received no felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences instructions. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a People v. Delgadillo brief, Solorza filed a supplemental brief attacking his underlying conviction and seeking age-based relief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that Solorza was tried solely as a direct participant and the jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences, making him ineligible for relief as a matter of law.“The court found Solorza was tried as a direct participant, and there was no jury instruction on felony murder or natural and probable consequences of aiding and abetting.” | unclear | correct | agree with court A prima facie denial under section 1172.6 is reviewed de novo, and the record of conviction, including jury instructions, may be consulted to determine eligibility as a matter of law. Where the jury was instructed only on direct liability (with a torture-murder special circumstance found true) and never on felony murder or natural and probable consequences, the petitioner could not have been convicted under a theory of imputed malice, so denial without an evidentiary hearing is proper. The opinion does not state the standard of review or cite People v. Lewis, but the result follows directly from the uncontested instructional record. |
Appellate court's rejection of Solorza's supplemental-brief claims (ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and entitlement to relief based on his age of 15 at the time of the offenses) as outside the scope of a section 1172.6 appeal and not potentially meritorious.“His principal focus is that he is entitled to some relief because of his age. Solorza has not identified any potentially meritorious issues based on the record in this appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court A section 1172.6 proceeding is not a vehicle to relitigate the validity of the underlying conviction or to raise ineffective-assistance claims about the original trial and appeal; relief is limited to convictions resting on felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or other imputed-malice theories. Age-based claims (e.g., youth offender parole or Franklin-type proceedings) arise under different statutes and are not cognizable in this appeal. The court's treatment is cursory but correct in result. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal need not independently review the record but may do so in its discretion; it must evaluate any specific arguments raised in the defendant's supplemental brief.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may rely on the record of conviction, including jury instructions, to deny relief where the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law, but must accept the petition's allegations as true and may not engage in factfinding; denial at this stage is reviewed de novo.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is plainly correct because the jury was instructed only on direct-perpetrator liability and found a torture-murder special circumstance, so Solorza is ineligible under section 1172.6 as a matter of law, and his collateral attacks on the conviction and age-based claims fall outside this proceeding. The opinion, however, states no standard of review, does not cite People v. Lewis for the prima facie framework, and disposes of Solorza's supplemental arguments in a single sentence without explaining why they are not cognizable.
Opinion
Filed 11/12/25 P. v. Solorza 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, D085096
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF132370)
JOSE ALFREDO SOLORZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. Jose Alfredo Solorza, in pro. per.; and John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2010, a jury convicted Jose Alfredo Solorza of arson (Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c)) and first-degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true a special circumstance of torture-murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). Solorza, who was 15 years old at the time of the offenses, was sentenced to an 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder plus four years for the arson count. Solorza appealed and this court affirmed the judgment but remanded the case to the trial court to correct the custody credits. (People v. Solorza (July 18, 2012, D058184) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, Solorza filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction including the jury instructions, and held a hearing. The court found Solorza was tried as a direct participant, and there was no jury instruction on felony murder or natural and probable consequences of aiding and abetting. The court found Solorza did not establish a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law and denied the petition. Solorza 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. We offered Solorza the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a brief. In his submission, Solorza attacks his underlying conviction on multiple grounds. He contends counsel at trial and on appeal were ineffective for failing to raise unidentified issues. His principal focus is that he is entitled to some relief because of his age. Solorza has not identified any potentially meritorious issues based on the record in this appeal. The facts of the offenses were discussed in this court’s opinion in the first appeal. We will not repeat the statement of facts here.
2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief under the procedure outlined in Delgadillo. Counsel urges the court to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error. We have reviewed the record. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Solorza in this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Solorza’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
KELETY, 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
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19