People v. Armenta CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086550 · 2026-06-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF18905
Trial judge: Poli Flores
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:21Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Armenta's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was a major participant in the crimes. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, conducting an independent review of the record after appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court found Armenta was a major participant in the crimes as a coconspirator acting with the intent to kill. The court found Armenta not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, stating that its independent review of the record did not discover any potentially meritorious issues for reversal. The court noted that the appellant's brief challenged the original conviction rather than the specific grounds for the resentencing denial, and thus did not raise arguable issues for this specific appeal.

Authorities

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

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the scope of the appeal (resentencing petition vs. original conviction) and applies the Delgadillo/Wende framework for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it relies entirely on the absence of arguable issues in the appellant's brief and a cursory independent review, without explicitly analyzing the trial court's factual findings regarding 'major participant' status under section 1172.6.

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

After appointing counsel, receiving briefing, and holding a hearing on Armenta's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, the trial court found he was a major participant and coconspirator who acted with intent to kill and denied the petition as ineligible for relief. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issues brief, Armenta filed a pro. per. brief attacking his long-final convictions, 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 resentencing petition after evidentiary hearing on the finding that Armenta was a major participant and coconspirator who acted with intent to kill “The court found Armenta was a major participant in the crimes as a coconspirator acting with the intent to kill. The court found Armenta not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition.”	unclear	correct	unsure A finding that the petitioner personally acted with intent to kill, if supported by substantial evidence, defeats eligibility under section 1172.6 because the petitioner could still be convicted of murder under current law. The appellate court conducted an independent Delgadillo review and found no arguable issue, and it properly treated Armenta's attacks on his original convictions and trial counsel as outside the scope of an appeal from a postjudgment resentencing order. However, the opinion recites no facts and states no standard of review, so there is no way to independently evaluate whether the intent-to-kill finding was supported.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, Wende review is not constitutionally required; the court must notify the defendant, consider any supplemental brief the defendant files, and may in its discretion independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues in a first appeal of right.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Delgadillo procedure, addressed the substance of Armenta's supplemental brief by correctly explaining that challenges to the original convictions, jury instructions, and trial counsel are not cognizable in an appeal from a postjudgment resentencing order, and exercised its discretion to review the record independently. The opinion nonetheless omits any recitation of the facts supporting the intent-to-kill finding and does not identify the standard of review, leaving the reader unable to verify the result from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/11/26 P. v. Armenta 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, D086550

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF18905)

RICHARD ARMENTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Armenta, in pro. per., and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2008, a jury found Richard Armenta guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187 & 182, subd. (a)(1)). The alleged gang enhancement was found true. The court sentenced Armenta to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Armenta appealed, and this court reduced the murder conviction to second degree murder and otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Armenta (Apr. 29, 2010, D054071 [nonpub. opn.].) On remand Armenta was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. In 2022, Armenta filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Ultimately the court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. The court found Armenta was a major participant in the crimes as a coconspirator acting with the intent to kill. The court found Armenta not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition. Armenta filed a timely notice of appeal from the order which denied his petition for resentencing. STATEMENT OF FACTS We discussed the facts of the offense in our prior opinion in People v. Armenta, supra, D054071. We will not discuss the facts again in this opinion. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error in the manner we would if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified Armenta that he could file his own brief on appeal. Amenta responded to our notice by filing his own brief. In his lengthy brief, Armenta principally challenges his original conviction. This appeal is from the denial of his petition for postjudgment resentencing. Amenta’s convictions were affirmed years ago. He challenges the original jury instructions and argues his trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing Armenta’s position as he would have done. He also argues his 2 appellate counsel was ineffective in finding no arguable issues to present to the court. We recognize Armenta wants to challenge his convictions. The present appeal is from the denial of the resentencing petition not the convictions. His submission does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION Counsel has filed a brief under Delgadillo and asks us to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error. We have done so, and our review has not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Armenta in this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Armenta’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, 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
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12