People v. Jimenez CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/28/26 P. v. Jimenez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B351814

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. PA062801)

ALEX JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Alex Jimenez appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) identifying no issues, and appellant then filed a supplemental brief. The trial court’s order is affirmed.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. BACKGROUND2 On September 17, 2008, appellant was walking on the sidewalk next to a woman with a stroller. When a man walked past the couple, appellant said something to the woman, and she walked away. Appellant then grabbed a gun from his waistband and shot the man several times. Appellant was identified by witnesses and arrested. After being advised of his rights, he admitted he was part of a gang and sold drugs in the area. He explained that the man he shot was a member of a rival gang who he heard was selling drugs in the same area. He also admitted that he had hoped to kill the victim. Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder (§§ 664/187) and admitted firearm, great bodily injury, and gang enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subd. (c), 12022.7, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). He was sentenced to 42 years in prison. On May 27, 2025, appellant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The People filed an opposition and attached the preliminary hearing transcript to show that the sole theory they could proceed on was that appellant was the actual killer. After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition under People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 because the record of conviction showed appellant was to be prosecuted as the actual killer, and he had not alleged any nonconclusory allegations to warrant an evidentiary hearing. DISCUSSION Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability and limited 2 These facts are drawn from the preliminary hearing transcript.

2 the scope of the felony-murder rule. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) The felony-murder rule was amended to provide that “[a] participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The person was the actual killer. [¶] (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. [¶] (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.” (§ 189, subd. (e).) Senate Bill 1437 also amended section 188 to require that, when the felony-murder rule does not apply, a principal in the crime of murder “shall act with malice aforethought” and “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3); see People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 836.) Senate Bill 1437 authorizes the filing of a petition “ ‘to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ ” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 967.) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 to expand its coverage to individuals convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and manslaughter.

3 (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544.) Upon receiving a properly pleaded petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, the trial court is to appoint counsel to the petitioner, if requested. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 966.) The court then conducts a prima facie review to determine eligibility for relief and issues an order to show cause if a prima facie showing is made. (Id. at p. 971.) The court may consider the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner made the requisite prima facie showing. (Id. at pp. 971–972.) Under Delgadillo, we must evaluate appellant’s specific arguments but need not conduct an independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232.) Appellant has not raised a single issue pertaining to his eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6. Instead, he argues that various unrelated developments in the law warrant striking his gang and great-bodily-injury enhancements. These arguments fall short of persuading us that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage because the record of conviction showed the only viable theory was that he was the actual killer. DISPOSITION The trial court’s order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J. RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J.