Opinion
B323644
01-19-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON SOBALVARRO, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Lennon and Olivia Meme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MA025454 Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Lennon and Olivia Meme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CURREY, P. J.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2004, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Aaron Sobalvarro of first degree murder. (Pen Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In 2021, Sobalvarro filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95. The prosecution filed an opposition, arguing Sobalvarro had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief because the court did not instruct the jury on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In light of the instructions provided, the prosecution argued the jury necessarily convicted Sobalvarro of murder under a still-valid murder theory, rendering him ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. Through counsel, Sobalvarro filed a response, arguing because the record of conviction did not establish the extent of Sobalvarro's participation in the crime, it did not establish ineligibility as a matter of law. The trial court agreed with the prosecution that the jury instructions demonstrated Sobalvarro was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the statute by its new code section. That section provides relief for certain individuals convicted of murder under the felony murder rule, natural and probable consequence doctrine, or any other theory of imputed-malice liability. (See § 1172.6.)
Sobalvarro timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On July 10, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting discretionary independent review of the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. On August 13, 2023, Sobalvarro filed a supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION
In his brief, Sobalvarro does not contest the fact that the jury convicted him of express malice murder. Instead, he argues he should be granted section 1172.6 relief because he was asleep at the crime scene and did not participate in the murder. We are unpersuaded.
The jury was not instructed on the felony murder rule, natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory of imputed-malice liability. Under the instructions given, the jury necessarily concluded Sobalvarro, with express malice, either personally committed or directly aided and abetted a willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder. The jury instructions thus demonstrate as a matter of law that Sobalvarro is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. (See §§ 188, 189 [express malice willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder remains a valid theory of liability under current homicide law].) We therefore reject his contentions that the trial court erred by concluding he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
In addition to rejecting the arguments Sobalvarro raised in his supplemental brief, we have exercised our discretion to independently review the record, and we conclude no arguable issues exist. (See People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying Sobalvarro section 1172.6 relief is affirmed.
We concur: MORI, J. ZUKIN, J.