People v. Campos CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086258 · 2026-06-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR125741
Trial judge: Laura J. Birkmeyer
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Truc T. Do (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:20Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Campos's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record established he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record under People v. Delgadillo, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The order denying Campos’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court exercised its discretion under People v. Delgadillo to independently review the record for error and found no arguable issues for reversal, noting that the record showed individual intent to kill and that Campos was the actual killer, which precludes relief under section 1172.6.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Grants appellate courts discretion to independently review the record for error in cases where counsel cannot identify arguable issues, replacing the Wende procedure in such contexts.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Established the procedural requirements for appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues, which the court noted are not required in cases governed by Delgadillo.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request the court to independently review the record, which counsel complied with here.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo framework for independent review when counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it relies heavily on the trial court's factual findings regarding the 1991 record (actual killer status) without detailed analysis of the specific jury instruction arguments raised in the supplemental brief, though it notes those arguments did not identify arguable issues for reversal.

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 this court previously reversed a summary denial of Jesus Campos's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, the trial court on remand set an evidentiary hearing, found the 1991 jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting, felony murder, or natural and probable consequences and that the record showed Campos was the actual killer with individual intent to kill, and again denied the petition. Appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Campos filed a supplemental brief attacking the original 1991 jury instructions, 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 on remand, based on the finding that the jury was not instructed on any imputed-malice theory and the record showed Campos was the actual killer with intent to kill “The court found there were no jury instructions on aiding and abetting, felony murder or natural and probable consequences and the record showed individual intent to kill and that Campos was the actual killer.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to a petitioner who could have been convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or another theory of imputed malice; where the jury received no such instructions and the only theory presented was that the petitioner personally killed with intent to kill, the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law and the record of conviction forecloses relief. Campos's supplemental brief challenging the 1991 instructions attacks the original judgment, which is not reviewable in a 1172.6 appeal. The opinion's reasoning is thin and the procedural posture (prima facie stage versus subdivision (d)(3) hearing) is not clearly described, but the stated findings support denial under either standard.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions, but the Court of Appeal has discretion to independently review the record; when the defendant files a supplemental brief, the court must evaluate the arguments raised.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Delgadillo, considered Campos's supplemental brief, exercised discretionary independent review, and reached a defensible result because the trial court's findings that no imputed-malice theory was instructed and that Campos was the actual killer foreclose section 1172.6 relief. The opinion, however, does not explain why Campos's supplemental brief raises no arguable issue, does not cite the governing substantive 1172.6 authority, and leaves the procedural posture of the remand hearing ambiguous.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/22/26 P. v. Campos 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, D086258

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR125741)

JESUS CAMPOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. Jesus Campos, in pro. per.; and Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1991, a jury convicted Jesus Campos of first degree murder. He was sentenced to prison for 27 years to life. Campos appealed and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion filed October 27, 1993, People v. Campos-Covarrubias, D017737. In 2023, Campos filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Campos appealed and this court reversed the trial court’s denial of the resentencing petition. (People v. Campos (Nov. 26, 2024, D083277) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand the trial court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. The court found there were no jury instructions on aiding and abetting, felony murder or natural and probable consequences and the record showed individual intent to kill and that Campos was the actual killer. The court again denied the resentencing petition. Campos filed a timely notice of appeal. 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 recognizes the procedural requirements of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 are not required in cases governed by Delgadillo. Counsel notes however, that Delgadillo grants the appellate courts discretion to independently review the record for error. Counsel asks the court to exercise the discretion granted to it and independently review the record for error. The court has advised Campos of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Campos has filed a supplemental brief. He principally challenges the jury instructions which were utilized in his 1991 jury trial. He recognizes this appeal is not from his original trial and conviction. However, he thinks we should consider whether the trial court’s original instructions were proper or whether other instructions should have been given. Campos’s 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 supplemental brief in this appeal does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Delgadillo and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. Whether the jury instructions alone precluded Campos from setting out a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6, subdivision (c). We have exercised our discretion and independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Campos in this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Campos’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:

DO, 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.

Cites, in this corpus

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