Filed 6/17/26 P. v. Triplett 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, G065606
v. (Super. Ct. No. 19CF2608)
ANTONIO LAMONT TRIPLETT, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed.
David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
In 2022, a jury convicted defendant Antonio Lamont Triplett of
first degree murder, robbery, and found true a felony-murder special
circumstance. While his appeal was pending, Triplett filed a Penal Code
section 1172.6 petition seeking to vacate the murder conviction, and to be
1
resentenced. In 2025, after this court affirmed Triplett’s murder conviction,
the trial court denied the section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage.
Triplett filed a notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed
an opening brief raising no arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Triplett has not filed a supplemental brief.
In the interests of justice, this court has reviewed the record and
found no arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230
[“if the appellate court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct
its own independent review of the record in the interest of justice”].)
We affirm the order of the trial court.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2019, Triplett was involved in an armed robbery
from a marijuana dispensary that resulted in the death of an employee who
was transporting cash receipts. The People charged Triplett with first degree
felony murder based on a theory that Triplett was a major participant who
acted with reckless disregard for human life.
In June 2022, a jury convicted Triplett of first degree murder,
and second degree robbery. The jury found true a felony-murder allegation
that the murder was committed during the course of the robbery. The trial
1
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
court imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison without the possibility
of parole.
In December 2022, while his appeal from his murder conviction
was pending, Triplett filed a petition seeking to vacate his murder and
attempted murder convictions and to be resentenced. (See § 1172.6.)
In November 2024, this court filed an unpublished opinion
affirming the judgment, with a modification to strike Triplett’s parole
revocation fine. (People v. Triplett (Nov. 20, 2024, G062399) [nonpub. opn.].)
In May 2025, the trial court conducted a prima facie hearing and
denied Triplett’s section 1172.6 petition in a written order:
“The petition is DENIED on the following grounds:
“1. The defendant/petitioner’s conviction by a jury trial occurred
AFTER the enactment of SB 1437. The jury was NOT instructed on theories
of liability banned by SB 1437, and the appellate court affirmed this
conviction.
“2. Thus, the record of conviction indisputably establishes that
the defendant/ petitioner has not met his burden in showing that he ‘could
not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to Section 188 or
189 made effective January 1, 2019.’ Pen. Code § 1172.6, subd. (a).”
In June 2025, Triplett filed a notice of appeal.
In February 2026, Triplett’s appointed appellate counsel filed an
opening brief and a declaration advising this court that counsel “found no
arguable issues to raise on appeal.”
After being notified of his opportunity to do so, Triplett has not
filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
3
II.
DISCUSSION
When counsel identifies no arguable issues, an appellate court
reviews the record for arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–
442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First,
the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious.
That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success.
Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful,
the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result
will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People v.
Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
Here, we have independently reviewed the record on appeal in
the interest of justice, and we have similarly found no arguable issues. (See
People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230 [“if the appellate court
wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent
review of the record in the interest of justice”].)
The record establishes Triplett was convicted of felony murder
under a still valid theory that he was a major participant in the underlying
felony (robbery), and he acted with reckless indifference to human life. Thus,
the trial court properly denied the petition under the relevant provisions of
section 1172.6. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960–970.)
4
III.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying Triplett’s section 1172.6 petition
for vacatur and resentencing is affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DELANEY, J.
GOODING, J.
5