Filed 10/7/26 P. v. Real 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B349183
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. XEAKA052682)
v.
RANDY REAL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Rubiya Nur, Judge. Affirmed.
Randy Real, in pro. per.; and William J. Capriola, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Randy Real appeals from an order denying his Penal Code
section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.1 His appellate counsel
filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
Real filed a supplemental brief arguing that his petition was
erroneously denied, false evidence was admitted at his trial, and
another person confessed to being the actual perpetrator. We
consider Real’s contentions and affirm the trial court order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
“In 2001, Real shot and wounded Michael Wright, who
testified at trial that Real yelled the name of a gang before
shooting him. Another witness identified Real as the shooter.”
(People v. Real (Jan. 23, 2024, B328619) [nonpub. opn.], fn.
omitted.)2 A jury convicted Real of attempted willful, deliberate,
and premeditated murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), and
found true personal gun use (§§ 12022.5, former subd. (a)(1),
12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)), gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and
personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a))
allegations. A trial court sentenced Real to 55 years to life in
prison.
This division affirmed Real’s judgment of conviction on
direct appeal in People v. Real (Feb. 6, 2003, B154473) (nonpub.
opn.).
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered to
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
2 We have taken judicial notice of the opinion and the record
on appeal in that case. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)
2
In September 2021, Real filed a section 1172.6 petition for
resentencing. The trial court denied it because it was not filed in
the “appropriate form/format.”
In April 2022, Real filed a form petition for resentencing
under section 1172.6. The People’s opposition to the petition
included the jury instructions from Real’s trial. On December 13,
2022, the trial court denied the petition, noting that Real’s jury
was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences
doctrine or aiding and abetting, and he was instead prosecuted as
the actual perpetrator. Real appealed the order denying his
petition. A different panel of this division affirmed the order.
(People v. Real, supra, B328619.)
In August 2025, Real filed the at-issue form section 1172.6
petition for resentencing. On September 19, 2025, the trial court
denied the petition, stating this was Real’s fourth petition for
resentencing, yet he alleged no changes in fact or law.3
Therefore, “the Court deems this a duplicate petition and it is
denied.”
Real appealed the order denying his petition.
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill
No. 1437) limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder
rule, eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine
as it relates to murder, and eliminated convictions for murder
based on a theory under which malice is imputed to a person
based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. (See
generally People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 986; People v.
3 The record on appeal contains only three section 1172.6
petitions for resentencing.
3
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959; People v. Gentile (2020) 10
Cal.5th 830, 842–843.) Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg.
Sess.) then extended resentencing relief to defendants convicted
of attempted murder on a natural and probable consequences
theory. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2(a).)
Per Senate Bill No. 1437’s amendments, section 188,
subdivision (a)(3), now requires that to be convicted of murder, “a
principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice
shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her
participation in a crime.” The bill also amended section 189,
subdivision (e), which now provides that a person may be
convicted of felony murder only if the person (1) was the actual
killer; (2) was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill,
aided and abetted the actual killer in committing first degree
murder; or (3) “was a major participant in the underlying felony
and acted with reckless indifference to human life.” The
amendments, however, did not invalidate murder or attempted
murder convictions based on the theory the defendant was the
actual killer, actual attempted killer, or intended to kill. (See
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707.)
Senate Bill No. 1437 created a procedure, codified at
section 1172.6, for a person convicted of murder under the former
law to be resentenced if the person could no longer be convicted of
those crimes under current law. (People v. Emanuel (2025) 17
Cal.5th 867, 880.) At the prima facie stage, the trial court takes
as true the petitioner’s factual allegations and assesses whether
the petitioner would be entitled to relief if those allegations were
proved. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) If at the
prima facie stage, the record of conviction establishes that the
petition is meritless, the trial court may dismiss it. (Ibid.)
4
Section 1172.6 does not expressly bar successive petitions
for resentencing. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942,
950.) But the doctrine of collateral estoppel may bar a successive
petition if there are no changes in law that bring into question a
prior ruling. (Ibid.) Real’s current petition cites no change in law
that brings into question this court’s prior decision in People v.
Real, supra, B328619. The trial court therefore properly denied
the petition at the prima facie stage.
In his supplemental brief, Real asserts that evidence at his
trial was false and unreliable, including a photo lineup used to
identify him, and that another person confessed to attempting to
kill Wright. These issues are outside the scope of the
section 1172.6 inquiry. (See, e.g., People v. Strong, supra, 13
Cal.5th at p. 715 [§ 1172.6 does not “permit wholesale relitigation
of findings supporting murder convictions”]; People v. Coley
(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 549 [§ 1172.6 “is not a means by
which a defendant can relitigate issues already decided”]; People
v. Farfan, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 947 [“mere filing” of
§ 1172.6 petition does not afford petitioner new opportunity to
raise trial error claims or attack sufficiency of evidence to support
jury’s findings]; People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438
[§ 1172.6 is not a direct appeal].)
5
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, P. J.
We concur:
HANASONO, 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.
6