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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
10