Filed 8/26/26 P. v. Barber CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065547
v. (Super. Ct. No. 08WF0314)
JOVAN DEONTE BARBER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of
Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed.
Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A jury convicted defendant Jovan Deonte Barber of attempted
murder. He filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6,
which the trial court denied at the prima facie stage.1 On appeal, his
appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief, requesting that we independently
review the record for error under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). We have exercised our discretion per Delgadillo but have found
no arguable issues. Thus, we affirm the court’s postjudgment order denying
the section 1172.6 petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.
SECTION 1172.6
To prove attempted murder, the prosecution must establish that
the defendant acted with specific intent to kill. (People v. Canizales (2019) 7
Cal.5th 591, 602.) Prior to 2019, however, aiders and abettors could be found
guilty of attempted murder under a natural and probable consequences
theory even if they personally lacked the intent to kill. (People v. Sanchez
(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 191, 193–194, 196.) The direct perpetrator’s “‘intent to
kill’ was imputed” onto the aider and abettor if the “attempted murder was a
natural and probable consequence of [the aider and abettor’s] intent to
participate in the target offense.” (People v. Montes (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th
1001, 1007–1008.)
In 2019, the Legislature eliminated the natural and probable
consequence theory of murder by passing Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437).
(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 984.) SB 1437 amended “‘the natural
and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
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.’”
(People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.)
SB 1437 also “added section 1170.95 [(now section 1172.6)], which
provides a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted
under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief.” (People v. Lewis (2021)
11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) The Legislature later clarified that persons convicted of
attempted murder under a natural and probable consequences theory could
also seek relief under section 1172.6. (People v. Whitson (2022) 79
Cal.App.5th 22, 30.)
Persons convicted of murder or attempted murder prior to SB
1437’s amendments may seek relief by filing a resentencing petition under
section 1172.6. (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707–708.) The trial
court reviews such petitions to determine whether the petitioner has made a
prima facie case for relief. “If the petition and record in the case establish
conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may
dismiss the petition.” (Id. at p. 708.)
On an appeal from a denial of a section 1172.6 petition, if
appointed counsel finds no arguable issues to pursue, (1) counsel should file a
brief stating that determination with a factual summary of the petition’s
denial, and (2) the court should notify the defendant of his or her right to file
a supplemental brief and that the appeal may be dismissed if no such brief is
filed within 30 days. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231–232.) If the
defendant files a supplemental brief, the appellate court must evaluate the
arguments made therein and issue a written opinion. (Id. at p. 232.) If no
3
supplemental brief is filed, the appellate court has discretion to dismiss the
appeal or review the record independently. (Ibid.)
II.
BARBER’S ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION
In 2009, a jury found Barber guilty of the attempted murder of
S.C. (the victim). (Former §§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) It found true that Barber
committed this offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (Former §
186.22, subd. (b)(1).) It also found true that in committing the attempted
murder, Barber intentionally and personally discharged a firearm, which
caused great bodily injury to the victim. (Former § 12022.53 subd. (d).) The
court sentenced Barber to the upper term of nine years for the attempted
murder count plus consecutive terms of 10 years for the gang enhancement
and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.2
Barber filed a resentencing petition under section 1172.6 in
February 2025 (the petition). The trial court denied the petition following a
prima facie hearing. Its statement of decision explained, “[t]he record of
conviction conclusively establishes that [Barber] was convicted as either the
actual attempted killer or direct aider and abettor, both of which remain
valid theories under current law.” Among other things, “the jury did not
receive a natural and probable consequences instruction.”
Barber appealed the petition’s denial. His counsel then filed a no-
issue brief requesting an independent review of the record under Delgadillo.
In December 2025, this court issued an order granting Barber 30 days to file
2 Barber was also found guilty of assault with a semi-automatic firearm
(former § 245, subd. (b)), carrying a loaded firearm in public (former § 12031,
subd. (a)), and street terrorism (former § 186.22, subd. (a)). The court stayed
the sentences for these counts under former section 654.
4
a supplemental brief and stating that his appeal could be dismissed if he
failed to do so. Barber did not file anything in response, but we have
exercised our discretion to review the record in the interests of justice.
DISCUSSION
Based on our review, we agree with Barber’s counsel that there
are no arguable issues. As the trial court noted, the jury instructions did
not mention the natural and probable consequences theory. Nor was the jury
instructed on any other theory that would have allowed it to impute an intent
to kill on Barber based on his participation in another offense. Under the
instructions given, the jury had to find that Barber “intended to kill [the
victim]” to convict him of attempted murder. The jury also expressly found
that Barber “intentionally and personally discharged a firearm proximately
causing great bodily injury to [the victim],” during the commission of the
attempted murder. This finding reiterates that the jury did not convict
Barber of murder based on his participation in another offense. Given the
record, Barber is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying the petition is affirmed.
MOORE, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
DELANEY, J.
5