Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Holguin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B348523
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA074678
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY
HOLGUIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Appellant Michael Anthony Holguin appeals the denial of
his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.61 to
vacate his convictions for eight counts of attempted murder. His
appellate counsel asks us to follow the procedures outlined in
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We
affirm the order denying Holguin’s petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Facts2
On February 28, 2006, at about 10:30 p.m., Ricardo Meza
and six other men, including his brother German Meza, were in
front of a house at 123 Banbridge in La Puente, California. Four
of the men were in a car parked in front of the house. Ricardo,
German, and Edmond Gale were standing near the sidewalk.
A white car stopped in front of the house. Holguin was in
the front passenger seat. He asked Ricardo and the others if they
were from a gang or if they “banged.” Ricardo replied that he
“didn’t bang.” Holguin got out of the car. The rear passenger
handed a .22 caliber rifle with an extended magazine to Holguin
and told him to “ ‘shoot up, shoot up.’ ” Holguin aimed the rifle at
the men in the parked car and fired several shots. Multiple shots
struck the car’s windshield, shattering the glass. Holguin
continued firing, as the car drove away in reverse. Ricardo,
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2 This factual background is based on the evidence presented
at the preliminary hearing which was conducted on July 20,
2006.
2
German, and Gale ran into the house. Holguin drove away in the
white car. Ricardo called 911.
Inside the house, Ricardo, German, and Gale met with
Gary Flores. Ricardo told Flores about the shooting. They all
went outside. When they reached the sidewalk, the white car
returned and stopped in front of the house. Flores heard
someone say, “ ‘Get him,’ ” and saw a rifle at the rear passenger
side of the car. When Flores saw the rifle, he ran toward the
house. He heard multiple shots fired and felt bullets “whizzing”
by him. Flores was struck in the back by a shot. Ricardo and the
others pulled Flores inside the house, as Holguin continued firing
at them. Once inside, they saw that the shot entered Flores’s
back and exited through his chest, causing his lung to collapse.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Steven Kays knew
Holguin and opined that he was a member of the Blackwood
criminal street gang. According to Deputy Kays, Holguin had
“Blackwood” tattooed on his chest and he lived with two
documented Blackwood gang members. The shooting occurred in
an area claimed by Barrio Puente or Eastside Puente, which was
a criminal street gang that had a rivalry with Blackwood.
II. Procedure
A. Original trial court proceedings and direct
appeal
On December 11, 2006, Holguin entered into post-
preliminary hearing plea agreement with the District Attorney.
He pleaded no contest to eight counts of attempted murder
(§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; counts 1–8). As to counts 1, 2, and 3, he
admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) and an
enhancement for personally discharging a firearm (§ 12022.53,
3
subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced Holguin to an aggregate
term of 63 years and eight months in state prison.
On February 9, 2007, Holguin filed a notice of appeal. On
September 5, 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed Holguin’s
appeal for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause.3
B. Resentencing petition
On August 14, 2023, Holguin filed a petition for
resentencing under section 1172.6. On January 16, 2024, the
district attorney responded that Holguin was ineligible for relief
because he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murders.
The district attorney included the jury instructions, the opinion
from the direct appeal, the reporter’s transcript of the
preliminary hearing, and the transcript of the plea and
sentencing. On February 27, 2025, Holguin filed a reply.
On August 21, 2025, the superior court found that Holguin
failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief
under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition.
On August 28, 2025, Holguin filed a notice of appeal.
Counsel filed an opening brief stating he 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 he advised Holguin that he could
submit a supplemental brief. Counsel also stated he would send
a copy of his brief and the transcripts of the record on appeal to
Holguin.
On June 24, 2026, Holguin filed a supplemental brief.
3 People v. Holguin (B196960, Sept. 5, 2007) (nonpub. opn.).
4
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
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.)
After receiving a petition for resentencing, the superior
court is to appoint counsel if requested. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th
at p. 966.) The court determines whether the petitioner has
5
made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief. The court
issues an order to show cause if the showing is made. (Id. at p.
971.) If the record conclusively establishes that the petitioner is
ineligible for relief, the court may dismiss the petition. (Curiel,
supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 450.)
Under Delgadillo, we must evaluate the appellant’s specific
arguments. But we are not required to conduct an independent
review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 231–
232.) Holguin has not raised any issue pertaining to his
eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6 which would
support concluding that the superior court erred in denying his
petition.
6
DISPOSITION
We affirm the trial court’s order denying Holguin’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.
7