People v. McGregor CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/25/26 P. v. McGregor CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B351286

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA482072-02) v. IKOUREE McGREGOR, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Ikouree McGregor (defendant) appeals from the denial of his petition for vacatur of his murder conviction and resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. Defendant contends the trial court erred by “engaging in ‘factfinding’” at the prima facie stage. Defendant’s appointed 1 Unless otherwise designated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. counsel identified no arguable issues and filed a brief requesting we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record as set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We have considered defendant’s supplemental brief and reviewed the record. Finding no merit to defendant’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition.

BACKGROUND In 2022, in a fourth amended information, the People charged defendant with, among other things, murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 10) and robbery (§ 211; count 11). In November 2022, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder as alleged in count 10 and robbery as alleged in count 11. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life for the first degree murder and sentence for the robbery was stayed pursuant to section 654. On November 20, 2024, this court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. (People v. Matthews (Nov. 20, 2024, B327165) [nonpub. opn.].) On November 21, 2024, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel. The People filed a response to defendant’s petition. In it, the People alleged defendant could not make a prima facie showing of eligibility because “[h]is conviction occurred almost four years after the [Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017- 2018 Reg. Sess.)] went into effect, and the court properly instructed [defendant’s jury] under the new law” and, on appeal, this court found defendant was a major participant in the underlying robbery and acted with reckless indifference to 2 human life using the factors established in Banks2 and Clark3. In July 2025, defense counsel filed a reply to the People’s response, objecting to the use of the Court of Appeal opinion for purposes of determining prima facie eligibility and asked the court to proceed to an evidentiary hearing. On November 20, 2025, a prima facie hearing was held. The court noted it reviewed “the charging documents and the jury instructions and the verdict forms.” The court also indicated it “read the Court of Appeal opinion, not for the factual summary but for the court’s findings and rulings on the case.” The court found defendant had not made a prima facie showing for relief because “the offenses in this case occurred after the enactment of … Senate Bill 1437.” The court noted the trial “included the jury instructions as to the amended felony murder rule that now requires a finding that the defendant was a major participant in a felony and act[ed] with reckless indifference.” Specifically, the jury was instructed with CALJIC No. 8.21 that “lists all the Banks and Clark factors.” Noting defendant challenged this very issue on direct appeal, the trial court referred to our discussion of the Banks and Clark factors as they related to defendant’s case. The court found defendant was ineligible as a matter of law and denied the petition. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we 2 People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks). 3 People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark).

3 are not required to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, even if we do not independently review the record to identify unraised issues in a case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his or her own supplemental brief or letter and then evaluate any specific arguments raised. (See id. at p. 232.) Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the record on appeal and informed him of his right to file his own supplemental brief. We notified defendant of counsel’s brief and gave defendant 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished to be considered and informed him that if he did not do so, the appeal would be dismissed. Defendant filed a supplemental brief within the time allowed. “It is undisputed that when Senate Bill 1437 amended Penal Code section 189 to incorporate major participation and reckless indifference requirements, it codified the understanding of those requirements elucidated in Banks and Clark.” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710.) “It is also undisputed that findings made after Banks and Clark ordinarily establish a defendant’s ineligibility for resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 and thus preclude the defendant from making a prima facie case for relief.” (Ibid.) Thus “[i]f a jury has determined beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, as those phrases are now understood and as the Legislature intended them to be understood when incorporating them into Penal Code section 189, then that defendant necessarily could still be convicted of murder under section 189 as amended.” (Ibid.)

4 Here, defendant was tried and convicted in 2022 after the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). Accordingly, he was not prosecuted under a now-invalid theory of murder liability. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court did not engage in inappropriate factfinding. Instead, it properly took notice of the date of defendant’s trial and conviction and reviewed the charging documents, jury instructions, verdict forms, as well as this court’s analysis of the Banks and Clark factors.

DISPOSITION The trial court’s order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. GOORVITCH, J.