People v. Tlatelpa CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/19/26 P. v. Tlatelpa CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B345634

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. XCNBA458942) v.

JOSE TLATELPA,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Jose Tlatelpa appeals the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1172.61 petition for resentencing on the ground he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We appointed counsel for Tlatelpa, who filed a brief raising no issues and requesting we apply the review framework established by People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232 (Delgadillo). Accordingly, Tlatelpa was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, which he duly filed. (See ibid.) We are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion,” but we need 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. not and do not conduct “an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (Id. at p. 232.) We have considered Tlatelpa’s supplemental brief and conclude his arguments have no merit. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 4, 2017, A.W.2 and his friend Efren Escobedo, a gang member, were hanging out with other friends. According to A.W., Tlatelpa, a member of a different gang, approached A.W. and Escobedo and acted with aggression. When A.W. and Escobedo tried to leave, Tlatelpa retrieved a rifle, struck Escobedo with the stock, and shot A.W. several times. Escobedo fled, and A.W. survived. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 30, 2018, Tlatelpa pled no contest to attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664). He also admitted a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)). The parties stipulated to a factual basis based on the police reports, the preliminary hearing transcript, the probation report, and any discovery. The trial court sentenced Tlatelpa to an aggregate term of 30 years. On August 21, 2023, Tlatelpa filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing in propria persona and requested appointment of counsel. The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. The People opposed Tlatelpa’s petition, arguing he could not establish a prima facie case for relief because he was the only shooter involved in the crime and was convicted on the theory that he was the actual shooter. After a hearing on April 17, 2025, the court agreed with the People’s position and determined Tlatelpa was statutorily ineligible 2 To protect his privacy, we refer to the victim by his initials pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).

2 for resentencing under section 1172.6. (See § 1172.6, subd. (c); People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724 (Antonelli).) Tlatelpa timely appealed. DISCUSSION Section 1172.6, subdivision (a), allows criminals “convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime” to file a resentencing petition in certain circumstances. (Ibid.) “[T]he section 1172.6 petitioning ‘process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met ([id.], subd. (b)(1)(A)), including that “[t]he petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to Section 188 or 189.” ’ ” (Antonelli, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 724; see also § 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).) The changes to sections 188 and 189 “altered the substantive law of murder in two areas”: they “narrowed the application of the felony-murder rule” and imposed a new requirement that “ ‘a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought.’ ” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448–449; see also §§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e).) That latter change ultimately had the effect of eliminating liability for murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Curiel, at p. 449.) When a petitioner files a facially adequate section 1172.6 petition, the trial court “afford[s] the parties an opportunity to submit briefing ‘[and] hold[s] a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief.’ ” (Antonelli, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 724.) If the court concludes the petitioner has made a prima facie showing, it issues an order to show cause, but “ ‘[i]f the petition and the record . . . establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition.’ ” (Ibid.)

3 Here, the trial court denied Tlatelpa’s petition at the prima facie stage on the ground the record conclusively established he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Tlatelpa urges us to vacate his sentence pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) relating to gang enhancements and the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Stats. 2020, ch. 17, § 3). But crucially, Tlatelpa’s brief does not discuss his eligibility for resentencing relief pursuant to section 1172.6. Section 1172.6 relief is available in only limited circumstances, “ ‘including that “[t]he petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to . . . Section 188 or 189.” ’ ” (Antonelli, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 724; see also § 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).) Because Tlatelpa’s arguments “do not relate to the changes to section 188 or 189,” they do not show the trial court erred in denying his section 1172.6 petition. (See People v. Nguyen (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1168; see also id. at p. 1167 [a petitioner cannot use a resentencing “petition as a vehicle for collaterally attacking the judgment”].) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

________________________________________________________________ CHAVEZ, Acting P. J. RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J.