People v. Sandoval CA2/4

Filed 4/25/25 P. v. Sandoval CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B335723 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. PA046234)

v.

ARNOLD CASTANEDA SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Remanded in part and Affirmed in part. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Jason Tran, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2008, defendant and appellant Arnold Castaneda Sandoval pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. In 2022, Sandoval filed a petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1172.6).1 The People, in contesting his prima facie showing, referenced specific facts within the record of conviction, specifically the preliminary hearing transcript, demonstrating why relief was unavailable. Sandoval offered no factual counterweight. The trial court summarily denied the petition based on the preliminary hearing transcript establishing Sandoval was the actual shooter whose conviction did not implicate an invalid theory of liability.

DISCUSSION The Legislature eliminated “natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) In turn, the Legislature created a procedural mechanism for defendants who could not be convicted of murder under the amended laws to seek retroactive relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1)-(3); Lewis, supra, at p. 957.) The Legislature then expanded the class of defendants entitled to relief to those convicted of manslaughter under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1); see People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 223, fn. 3.) The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court engaged in improper factfinding by relying on the preliminary hearing transcript.2 While this