People v. Aguon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086769 · 2026-08-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD233469
Trial judge: Joan P. Weber
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:17Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Aguon's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible because the record established he was the actual killer and the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, conducting an independent review of the record after appellate counsel filed a Delgadillo brief identifying no arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “Based on the record from the jury trial, the court found Aguon was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no error, noting that the jury instructions and verdict forms conclusively established Aguon was the actual killer and not convicted under a theory of natural and probable consequences or felony murder, which renders him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues while requesting the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to notify the court of the absence of arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo/Wende framework for independent review when counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it relies entirely on the trial court's factual findings regarding the jury instructions and verdict forms without providing a detailed analysis of why those specific records conclusively establish ineligibility under section 1172.6, though the conclusion is supported by the cited record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:09Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Michael Aguon's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding from the record of conviction that the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder and that Aguon was the actual killer who personally discharged a firearm causing death. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Aguon filed a letter brief identifying no specific error, and the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to review the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground the jury was never instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theories “The court found the jury was not instructed on liability based on natural and probable consequences on the acts of another person, nor was the jury instructed on liability based on the felony murder rule.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to persons convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or another theory imputing malice based solely on participation in a crime. Where the record of conviction shows the jury was never given any such instruction, the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law and the court may deny the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The opinion does not state the standard of review (which would be de novo under People v. Lewis), and does not quote the instructions, but nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court's reading of the instructions was wrong, and Aguon identified no error.
Finding, from the record of conviction, that Aguon was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for section 1172.6 relief “The court also found the record established that Aguon was the actual killer.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The jury found true that Aguon personally discharged a firearm causing death under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). That finding, coupled with the absence of any imputed-malice instruction, establishes he was convicted as the actual killer, who remains liable for murder under current law and is ineligible for relief. The result is defensible, though the opinion does not explain the link between the enhancement finding and actual-killer status and does not address whether the subdivision (e)(1) gang-based firearm finding introduces any ambiguity; the opinion's thin recitation makes it hard to be fully certain the record was as clear as described.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required; when counsel finds no arguable issues, the court must notify the defendant, may consider any supplemental brief, and may in its discretion independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — On a first appeal of right, when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 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 determine ineligibility as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence; the petitioner's allegations are taken as true unless refuted by the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: a petitioner whose jury was never instructed on an imputed-malice theory and who was found to have personally discharged the fatal shot is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and Aguon identified no specific error. The opinion, however, states no standard of review, does not cite People v. Lewis or explain how the record of conviction (as opposed to impermissible factfinding) established actual-killer status, and does not describe the instructions it reviewed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/12/26 P. v. Aguon 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, D086769

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD233469)

v. MICHAEL J. AGUON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County. Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed. Michael Aguon, in pro. per., and William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2012, a jury convicted Michael J. Aguon of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187). The jury also found the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) and that Aguon personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) and (e)(1).)

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2013, the court sentenced Aguon to a total indeterminate term of 50 years to life in prison Aguon appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion (People v. Aguon (Mar. 30, 2015, D064367) [nonpub. opn.]). In April 2024, Aguon filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court held a hearing to permit Aguon to try to state a prima facie case for resentencing under section 1172.6. At the prima facie hearing the court reviewed the record of conviction, including the jury instructions and verdict forms used in the original trial in 2013. The court found the jury was not instructed on liability based on natural and probable consequences on the acts of another person, nor was the jury instructed on liability based on the felony murder rule. The court also found the record established that Aguon was the actual killer. Based on the record from the jury trial, the court found Aguon was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. Aguon filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his petition for resentencing without first holding an evidentiary hearing. 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 as the court would do if this case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Aguon he could file his own brief on appeal. Aguon has filed a letter brief, which does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

2 Aguon argues he is entitled to a new hearing on his petition for resentencing, based on changes in the law since the trial court ruled on his petition. Aguon does not identify the changes he thinks would justify a new hearing. This is not an appeal from the jury verdict in 2013. Aguon does not identify any actions by the court at the hearing on the petition for resentencing. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided a statement of facts from our opinion in the appeal from the jury trial. This appeal is based on a different proceeding. To the extent the factual summary of the earlier trial provides any useful background, we have already discussed that evidence in our opinion.

DISCUSSION As we have discussed, appellate counsel filed a brief under the authority of Delgadillo. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion and independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of this case and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the jury instruction used in this case and the verdict forms conclusively establish that Aguon is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. We have exercised our discretion and reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Aguon on this appeal.

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

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, 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. 4

Cites, in this corpus

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