Filed 8/25/26 P. v. McGregor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B351286
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA482072-02)
v.
IKOUREE McGREGOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Defendant and appellant Ikouree McGregor (defendant)
appeals from the denial of his petition for vacatur of his murder
conviction and resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by “engaging in
‘factfinding’” at the prima facie stage. Defendant’s appointed
1 Unless otherwise designated, all further statutory
references are to the Penal Code.
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). We have considered defendant’s supplemental
brief and reviewed the record. Finding no merit to defendant’s
appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s
section 1172.6 petition.
BACKGROUND
In 2022, in a fourth amended information, the People
charged defendant with, among other things, murder (§ 187,
subd. (a); count 10) and robbery (§ 211; count 11). In November
2022, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder as alleged
in count 10 and robbery as alleged in count 11. Defendant was
sentenced to 25 years to life for the first degree murder and
sentence for the robbery was stayed pursuant to section 654.
On November 20, 2024, this court affirmed the conviction
on direct appeal. (People v. Matthews (Nov. 20, 2024, B327165)
[nonpub. opn.].)
On November 21, 2024, defendant filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court
appointed counsel. The People filed a response to defendant’s
petition. In it, the People alleged defendant could not make a
prima facie showing of eligibility because “[h]is conviction
occurred almost four years after the [Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-
2018 Reg. Sess.)] went into effect, and the court properly
instructed [defendant’s jury] under the new law” and, on appeal,
this court found defendant was a major participant in the
underlying robbery and acted with reckless indifference to
2
human life using the factors established in Banks2 and Clark3. In
July 2025, defense counsel filed a reply to the People’s response,
objecting to the use of the Court of Appeal opinion for purposes of
determining prima facie eligibility and asked the court to proceed
to an evidentiary hearing.
On November 20, 2025, a prima facie hearing was held.
The court noted it reviewed “the charging documents and the jury
instructions and the verdict forms.” The court also indicated it
“read the Court of Appeal opinion, not for the factual summary
but for the court’s findings and rulings on the case.” The court
found defendant had not made a prima facie showing for relief
because “the offenses in this case occurred after the enactment of
… Senate Bill 1437.” The court noted the trial “included the jury
instructions as to the amended felony murder rule that now
requires a finding that the defendant was a major participant in
a felony and act[ed] with reckless indifference.” Specifically, the
jury was instructed with CALJIC No. 8.21 that “lists all the
Banks and Clark factors.” Noting defendant challenged this very
issue on direct appeal, the trial court referred to our discussion of
the Banks and Clark factors as they related to defendant’s case.
The court found defendant was ineligible as a matter of law and
denied the petition.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues
in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we
2 People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks).
3 People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark).
3
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 then evaluate any
specific arguments raised. (See id. at p. 232.)
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 informed him that if he did not do so, the appeal
would be dismissed. Defendant filed a supplemental brief within
the time allowed.
“It is undisputed that when Senate Bill 1437 amended
Penal Code section 189 to incorporate major participation and
reckless indifference requirements, it codified the understanding
of those requirements elucidated in Banks and Clark.” (People v.
Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710.) “It is also undisputed that
findings made after Banks and Clark ordinarily establish a
defendant’s ineligibility for resentencing under Senate Bill 1437
and thus preclude the defendant from making a prima facie case
for relief.” (Ibid.)
Thus “[i]f a jury has determined beyond a reasonable doubt
that a defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless
indifference to human life, as those phrases are now understood
and as the Legislature intended them to be understood when
incorporating them into Penal Code section 189, then that
defendant necessarily could still be convicted of murder under
section 189 as amended.” (Ibid.)
4
Here, defendant was tried and convicted in 2022 after the
effective date of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.).
Accordingly, he was not prosecuted under a now-invalid theory of
murder liability.
In reaching this conclusion, the trial court did not engage
in inappropriate factfinding. Instead, it properly took notice of
the date of defendant’s trial and conviction and reviewed the
charging documents, jury instructions, verdict forms, as well as
this court’s analysis of the Banks and Clark factors.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying the defendant’s section
1172.6 petition is affirmed.
LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. GOORVITCH, J.
5