Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Padilla CA2/3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B348222

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (26.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/27/26 P. v. Padilla 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B348222

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. XSEVA153246-01

DANIEL CARLOS PADILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Debra Cole-Hall, Judge. Affirmed.

Daniel Carlos Padilla, in pro. per.; and Larry Pizarro,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Daniel Carlos Padilla appeals from the superior court’s
order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code
section 1172.6.2 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People
v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and Padilla
filed a supplemental brief. We have independently reviewed
the contentions Padilla raises in his supplemental brief
and conclude they are without merit. We affirm.
In 2020, the People charged Padilla with the murder,
on February 6, 2020, of Carlos Martinez. The People alleged
both “personal” and “principal” firearm allegations as well as
a gang allegation. On January 11, 2024, Padilla entered into
a plea agreement with the prosecution. The prosecution
moved to amend the information to add a count for voluntary
manslaughter in violation of section 192, subdivision (a).
The prosecution added a firearm allegation under section
12022.5, subdivision (a), a gang allegation under section 186.22,
subdivision (b)(1)(C), and an aggravating factor allegation
under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1). Padilla
pleaded no contest to the charge and admitted the firearm,
gang, and rule 4.421(a)(1) allegations. The court sentenced
Padilla in accordance with the plea agreement to 24 years in
the state prison, calculated as the upper term of 11 years for
the manslaughter, the low term of three years for the firearm
enhancement, and 10 years for the gang enhancement.

1 We resolve this matter by memorandum opinion, consistent
with California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
(People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.)
2 References to statutes are to the Penal Code.

2
About 16 months later, on June 2, 2025, Padilla filed
a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. On July 31,
2025, the court denied Padilla’s petition for failure to state a
prima facie case. The court noted that, when Padilla entered
his plea, the prosecution already was precluded from proving
the manslaughter charge under any theory of imputed malice.
The court stated, “When the defendant entered his change
of plea, the now invalid theories of murder liability [for
manslaughter] had already been eliminated.”
Padilla appealed and we appointed counsel to represent
him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief stating he had
“reviewed the entire record on appeal” and he had “not [found]
any arguable issues to raise on appellant’s behalf.” Counsel
declared he had written to Padilla and explained his “evaluation
of the record on appeal” and his “intention to file this pleading.”
Counsel informed Padilla of his right to file a supplemental brief.
On March 2, 2026, Padilla filed a pleading erroneously
entitled, “Petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis Cal. Penal
Code § 1385 (a) Supplemental Opening Brief.” We construe the
pleading as a supplemental brief under Delgadillo in support
of Padilla’s appeal from the denial of his section 1172.6 petition.
Padilla did not dispute that his crime was committed after
the effective date of the statute nor did he identify any error
in the trial court’s denial of his petition on that ground. Instead,
he contended the court should have stayed the gun and gang
enhancements, the court should “exercise discretion” to strike
the enhancements, and he was a “youth offender and should

3
receive the retroactive application of the ameliorative change
in law to his conviction.”3
Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) took effect
on January 1, 2019. It eliminated the natural and probable
consequences doctrine as it relates to murder and limited
accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule. (People v.
Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843; People v. Lewis (2021)
11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959.) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate
Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) extended relief to people
convicted of (as relevant here) manslaughter, or of murder under
any “theory under which malice is imputed to a person based
solely on that person’s participation in a crime.” (Stats. 2021,
ch. 551, § 2. See § 188, subd. (a)(3).)
As amended, section 1172.6 provides an avenue for a
person convicted under the former law to petition the sentencing
court to vacate his conviction and be resentenced if he could
no longer be convicted under the amended law. (People v.
Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708–709, italics added.) To make
a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1172.6,
a petitioner must meet the condition that he or she “could not

3 Padilla also asserted he was “not a defendant as described
in § 1172.1(c), so the court must adhere to the terms of § 1172.1
and set a status conference within 30 days and appoint counsel.”
According to the clerk’s transcript, Padilla had filed a petition
under section 1172.1 on May 19, 2025. It appears the court took
no action on the petition, nor was it required to. Section 1172.1
expressly denies defendants the right to file a petition for
resentencing under that section, and expressly excuses the
trial court from acting on any such request that a defendant
might nevertheless file. (People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th
985, 993.)

4
presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to Section
188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3),
italics added), that is, changes made by Senate Bill No. 1437.
(People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 461.)
In December 2022, our Supreme Court decided Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Under Delgadillo, if a no-issues brief
is filed in a section 1172.6 appeal and the defendant then “files
a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required
to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and
to issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, at pp. 231–232.) We
are not required to conduct “an independent review of the entire
record to identify unraised issues.” (Id. at p. 232.)
As noted, Padilla has raised no claims of error in the
trial court’s denial of his petition. Although we are not required
to consider “unraised issues,” we conclude the court did not err.
Section 1172.6 does not apply to defendants—like Padilla—
who were convicted under current law. (People v. Lezama
(2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 583, 590; People v. Gallegos (2024) 105
Cal.App.5th 434, 443; People v. Reyes (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 292,
296.) Accordingly, Padilla is ineligible for relief under section
1172.6 as a matter of law.
We have independently reviewed the record and find
no arguable issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

5
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

ADAMS, J.

6