People v. Aranda CA2/3

Opinion

Filed 8/26/26 P. v. Aranda CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B349670

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA003413 v.

JORGE ARANDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rogelio Delgado, Judge. Affirmed. Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ In 1990, a jury convicted Jorge Aranda of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and aggravated mayhem. On direct appeal, his convictions were affirmed. In 2022, Aranda filed a petition for resentencing under the former Penal Code section 1170.95,1 now section 1172.6.2 After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied Aranda’s petition. On appeal, we reversed the superior court’s denial and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. In 2025, the superior court denied Aranda’s petition again. Aranda appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition for resentencing. His appellate counsel asks us to follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Aranda filed a supplemental brief. We affirm the order denying Aranda’s petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts3 On March 22, 1990, at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m., Aranda was driving a yellow car with Marco Antonio Araujo as his front passenger. Aranda and Araujo chased a car driven by Manuel Melendrez.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 3 We refer to the factual background from the opinions in People v. Aranda (Oct. 13, 1992, B054731) (nonpub. opn.) and People v. Aranda (Jan. 15, 2025, B332977) (nonpub. opn.). (People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 978, fn. 2, disapproved on another ground in People v. Patton (2025) 17 2 Aranda caught up to Melendrez while he was stopped at stop sign. Aranda drove up to Melendrez’s right side, stopping four feet away from him. Aranda asked Melendrez, “Where you from?” Melendrez did not reply. Aranda leaned back in his seat. Araujo pointed a gun at Melendrez and asked where he was from. Melendrez did not respond again. Araujo said, “Pomona,” and shot at Melendrez four times. Shots struck Melendrez in the right arm, Melendrez’s spinal cord, and back. The shots were “methodical” and “pretty rapid.” Aranda and Araujo fled on foot after their car stalled. The gun was later found in the front passenger seat of their car. A police detective named Cole testified that Aranda and Araujo had tattoos related to the Pomona Northside gang, which was a rival of the Claremont Rifa gang. Melendrez was formerly a Claremont Rifa gang member. On the day before the shooting, Aranda was driving the yellow car with Araujo. They chased a car driven by Nadine Ybarra who was a Claremont Rifa affiliate. Three other girls were in Ybarra’s car, including Sandra Melendrez, who was Manuel Melendrez’s sister. Araujo threw gang signs at Sandra Melendrez and the others. Aranda held a handgun out of his car’s window and waved it at Ybarra. Ybarra ducked. When she looked up, she saw Aranda laughing. Araujo said, “Don’t fuck with Northside.” Aranda and Araujo drove away laughing. Araujo testified that he and Aranda were in the same car and shots came from that car. He admitted to knowing “that a Cal.5th 549, 569; Flores, at p. 988.) Neither Aranda nor the Attorney General asserts that the appellate opinions inaccurately summarize the evidence.

3 shooting was about to take place.” But he denied shooting Melendrez. He denied knowing the identity of the shooter. He stated that two people were in the car with him. Maria Lopez, Aranda’s girlfriend, told Araujo’s girlfriend and his sister that Aranda admitted to shooting Melendrez. Lopez believed they wanted to hear this. Lopez told them about Aranda’s alleged admission because they had been bothering her once or twice a week for three months since the shooting. But during Lopez’s testimony at trial, she denied that Aranda told her that he shot Melendrez or that he said anything about the shooting. Leticia Araujo, Araujo’s sister, denied “bugging” Lopez about Aranda’s involvement in the shooting, even though she saw her on a regular basis. Lopez told Leticia three times what Aranda told her about the shooting. II. Procedure A. Original trial court proceedings and direct appeal On August 28, 1990, a jury convicted Aranda of the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a); count 1) and aggravated mayhem (§ 205; count 2). The jury found true the allegation that in the commission of each offense, a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). On September 7, 1990, the trial court imposed an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole for the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder in 4 count 1 and imposed one additional year for the principal armed enhancement.4 On October 13, 1992, the Court of Appeal affirmed Aranda’s convictions.5 B. Resentencing petition On January 24, 2022, Aranda filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6). On June 30, 2022, the District Attorney responded that Aranda was ineligible for relief because he “was prosecuted solely as an actor with actual malice.” The District Attorney included the jury instructions, the opinion from the direct appeal, the reporter’s transcript of the instructions read by the court and the closing argument, and the verdict forms. On July 27, 2022, Aranda filed a reply. On November 30, 2022, Aranda filed a brief in support of an evidentiary hearing. On August 15, 2023, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied Aranda’s petition in a memorandum of decision. On August 15, 2023, Aranda filed a notice of appeal. On January 15, 2025, this division reversed the superior court’s denial of Aranda’s petition.6 We remanded the matter to the superior court to reconsider the petition under the correct mental state for attempted murder.

4 The record indicates that the sentence for count 2 was “ordered stayed.” 5 People v. Aranda, supra, B054731. 6 People v. Aranda, supra, B332977.

5 On October 3, 2025, the superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Aranda’s petition.7 The court determined that the District Attorney proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Aranda was a direct aider and abettor and had the specific intent to kill. The court found Aranda ineligible for relief and denied the petition. On October 15, 2025, Aranda filed a notice of appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief stating she had “reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal.” Counsel requested that we follow the procedures in Delgadillo and exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel stated she had written to Aranda and advised him he could submit a supplemental brief. Counsel also stated she would send a copy of her brief and the transcripts of the record on appeal to Aranda. On June 26, 2026. Aranda filed a supplemental brief. DISCUSSION Ineligibility for relief under section 1172.6 Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the substantive law on accomplice liability for murder by significantly narrowing the felony murder rule and by requiring that a principal in a crime act with malice aforethought. (§§ 189, subd. (e), 188, subd. (a)(3); People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448–449 (Curiel).) The latter change requires that malice “not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).) The change eliminated liability for 7 The minute order incorrectly states that the court did “not find a prima facie showing” that Aranda was entitled to relief.

6 murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Curiel, at p. 449; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.) expanded eligibility for resentencing to include convictions for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 223, fn. 3.) These new laws created a procedure, codified at section 1172.6, for defendants convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine (or murder under the felony murder or natural and probable consequences doctrines or any theory in which malice is imputed based on participation in a crime) to petition to vacate the conviction and be resentenced on any remaining counts, if they could not now be convicted because of the changes made effective January 1, 2019. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 959–960.) If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing where the prosecutor and petitioner may offer new or additional evidence. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c); Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 960.) At the evidentiary hearing, the superior court may consider evidence previously admitted “including . . . , stipulated evidence, and matters judicially noticed.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) The jury instructions and verdicts are part of the record of conviction. They “may provide ‘readily ascertainable facts from the record’ that refute the petitioner’s showing . . . . [Citation.]” (People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1055, review granted on other grounds Sept. 23, 2020, S263939 and held for Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, review dismissed Nov. 17, 2021, opinion 7 citable to the extent not inconsistent with Lewis; People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56 [affirming summary denial because jury instructions and verdict established ineligibility for relief as a matter of law].) If the record conclusively establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for relief, the superior court may dismiss the petition. (Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 450.) The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the petitioner is guilty of attempted murder under the amended law and thus ineligible for resentencing. (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3); People v. Hill (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1065–1066.) The trial court acts as an independent fact finder to determine whether the prosecution has met its burden (id., at p. 1066) but its factual determinations are limited to “issues made relevant by the changes to the law effected by [the amendments].” (Gomez v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 778, 787.) To determine if the superior court properly denied a petition for resentencing after an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), we review the factual findings for substantial evidence. (People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575, 591; People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383.) We view the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment and accept inferences in favor of the superior court’s order. (Mitchell, at p. 591.) Substantial evidence supports Aranda’s liability for attempted murder under a direct aider and abettor theory. Aranda pursued victim Melendrez in a car chase. Aranda was driving with Araujo, his fellow Pomona Northside gang member. When Aranda caught up to Melendrez, he positioned his car only four feet away from him. Aranda challenged Melendrez, asking, 8 “Where you from?” When Melendrez failed to respond, Aranda leaned back in his seat to provide space for Araujo to extend his arm while holding a gun and fire four shots. Aranda never tried to stop Araujo from firing and never expressed surprise by the shooting. After the shooting, instead of aiding Melendrez, Aranda fled with Araujo. The evidence also showed that Aranda and Araujo targeted Melendrez, who was affiliated with Claremont Rifa which was a rival of Aranda’s and Araujo’s gang. On the day before the shooting, Aranda and Araujo chased a car driven by Nadine Ybarra who was a Claremont Rifa affiliate. Inside Ybarra’s car was Melendrez’s sister Sandra Melendrez. Once Aranda caught up to Ybarra’s car, he and Araujo threatened them with a firearm. We conclude that the evidence sufficiently established that Aranda was ineligible for relief, and the superior court properly denied his petition for resentencing.

9 DISPOSITION We affirm the trial court’s order denying Aranda’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS HANASONO, J.

We concur:

ADAMS, P. J.

ASHWORTH, J.* * Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.