Filed 8/19/26 P. v. Tlatelpa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B345634
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. XCNBA458942)
v.
JOSE TLATELPA,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Jose Tlatelpa appeals the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code
section 1172.61 petition for resentencing on the ground he was
ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We appointed counsel for
Tlatelpa, who filed a brief raising no issues and requesting we apply
the review framework established by People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232 (Delgadillo). Accordingly, Tlatelpa was
notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, which he duly filed.
(See ibid.) We are “required to evaluate the specific arguments
presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion,” but we need
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
not and do not conduct “an independent review of the entire record to
identify unraised issues.” (Id. at p. 232.)
We have considered Tlatelpa’s supplemental brief and conclude
his arguments have no merit. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 4, 2017, A.W.2 and his friend Efren Escobedo, a gang
member, were hanging out with other friends.
According to A.W., Tlatelpa, a member of a different gang,
approached A.W. and Escobedo and acted with aggression. When A.W.
and Escobedo tried to leave, Tlatelpa retrieved a rifle, struck Escobedo
with the stock, and shot A.W. several times. Escobedo fled, and A.W.
survived.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 30, 2018, Tlatelpa pled no contest to attempted
murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664). He also admitted a firearm
enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), a gang enhancement (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)(C)), and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d),
1170.12, subd. (b)). The parties stipulated to a factual basis based on
the police reports, the preliminary hearing transcript, the probation
report, and any discovery. The trial court sentenced Tlatelpa to an
aggregate term of 30 years.
On August 21, 2023, Tlatelpa filed a section 1172.6 petition for
resentencing in propria persona and requested appointment of
counsel. The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. The
People opposed Tlatelpa’s petition, arguing he could not establish a
prima facie case for relief because he was the only shooter involved in
the crime and was convicted on the theory that he was the actual
shooter. After a hearing on April 17, 2025, the court agreed with the
People’s position and determined Tlatelpa was statutorily ineligible
2 To protect his privacy, we refer to the victim by his initials
pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).
2
for resentencing under section 1172.6. (See § 1172.6, subd. (c); People
v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724 (Antonelli).)
Tlatelpa timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Section 1172.6, subdivision (a), allows criminals “convicted of
felony murder or murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed
to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime” to
file a resentencing petition in certain circumstances. (Ibid.) “[T]he
section 1172.6 petitioning ‘process begins with the filing of a petition
containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met
([id.], subd. (b)(1)(A)), including that “[t]he petitioner could not
presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to Section 188
or 189.” ’ ” (Antonelli, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 724; see also § 1172.6,
subd. (a)(3).)
The changes to sections 188 and 189 “altered the substantive
law of murder in two areas”: they “narrowed the application of the
felony-murder rule” and imposed a new requirement that “ ‘a principal
in a crime shall act with malice aforethought.’ ” (People v. Curiel
(2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448–449; see also §§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189,
subd. (e).) That latter change ultimately had the effect of eliminating
liability for murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine. (Curiel, at p. 449.)
When a petitioner files a facially adequate section 1172.6
petition, the trial court “afford[s] the parties an opportunity to submit
briefing ‘[and] hold[s] a hearing to determine whether the petitioner
has made a prima facie case for relief.’ ” (Antonelli, supra, 17 Cal.5th
at p. 724.) If the court concludes the petitioner has made a prima facie
showing, it issues an order to show cause, but “ ‘[i]f the petition and
the record . . . establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible
for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition.’ ” (Ibid.)
3
Here, the trial court denied Tlatelpa’s petition at the prima facie
stage on the ground the record conclusively established he was
ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Tlatelpa urges us to vacate his
sentence pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)
relating to gang enhancements and the Racial Justice Act of 2020
(Stats. 2020, ch. 17, § 3). But crucially, Tlatelpa’s brief does not
discuss his eligibility for resentencing relief pursuant to
section 1172.6. Section 1172.6 relief is available in only limited
circumstances, “ ‘including that “[t]he petitioner could not presently be
convicted of murder . . . because of changes to . . . Section 188
or 189.” ’ ” (Antonelli, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 724; see also § 1172.6,
subd. (a)(3).) Because Tlatelpa’s arguments “do not relate to the
changes to section 188 or 189,” they do not show the trial court erred
in denying his section 1172.6 petition. (See People v. Nguyen (2020)
53 Cal.App.5th 1154, 1168; see also id. at p. 1167 [a petitioner cannot
use a resentencing “petition as a vehicle for collaterally attacking the
judgment”].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
________________________________________________________________
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J. RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J.
4
