Filed 10/15/26 P. v. Gipson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B353460
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA200770)
v.
LARON DEPAUL GIPSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Defendant and appellant Laron Depaul Gipson (defendant)
appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant
to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Defendant’s appointed counsel
identified no arguable issues and filed a brief requesting we
exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the
record as set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
In 2000, a jury convicted defendant of one count of first
degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and the jury found true the
allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged
a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d).
Defendant was sentenced to 50 years to life. The judgment was
affirmed on direct appeal. (People v. Gipson (July 11, 2002,
B147009) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2025, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel and issued a
tentative order denying the petition because: (1) defendant was
the actual shooter and directly participated in the murder; (2) the
jury specifically found that defendant personally used a firearm
causing death; and (3) the jury was not instructed on felony
murder, the natural and probable consequences liability doctrine,
or any other theory that could impute malice to defendant.
Defendant’s counsel made a brief record and then submitted on
the tentative.
Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues
in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we
are not required to conduct an independent review of the record.
(See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, even if we
do not independently review the record to identify unraised
issues in a case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his
or her own supplemental brief or letter, and we then evaluate any
specific arguments raised. (See id. at p. 232.)
2
Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the record on
appeal and informed him of his right to file his own supplemental
brief. We notified defendant of counsel’s brief and gave
defendant 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating any
grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished to be
considered, and if he did not the appeal would be dismissed.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief within the time
allowed. In it, he asserts that he thought “[he] would be entitled
to be resentenced under People [v.] Pittman with all the[] youth
offender laws that ha[ve] come into law since [he] committed [his]
crime.”
In People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400 (Pittman), a
defendant convicted of second-degree implied malice murder as
an aider and abettor filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeal
reversed because the trial court did not consider the defendant’s
youth when he committed the crime in determining whether he
acted with implied malice, i.e., whether he “act[ed] with intent to
aid the life-endangering act of the direct perpetrator that
proximately cause[d] the death.” (Id. at p. 415.)
Here, defendant was not convicted under an implied malice
theory. As the trial court noted, defendant was the actual
shooter who personally used a firearm to commit the murder, and
the jury was not instructed on any implied malice theories. (See
People v. Solis (Sept. 4, 2026, E084088) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2026
WL 2638993] at p. *5 [“ ‘resentencing relief under section 1172.6
is not available to an “actual killer[]” ’ ”].) Therefore, the holding
in Pittman is not applicable to defendant’s case.
3
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
——————————————————————————————
LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. GOORVITCH, J.
4