People v. Malfavon CA4/3

Filed 7/10/25 P. v. Malfavon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G064045

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00CF2652)

JASON MICHAEL MALFAVON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury convicted defendant Jason Michael Malfavon of second degree murder. He filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court dismissed.1 On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief, requesting that we independently review the record for error under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We have exercised our discretion to review the record but have found no arguable issues. Thus, we affirm the court’s postjudgment order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2001, a jury found Malfavon guilty of one count of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and one count of assault on a child with force likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in death (§ 273ab). Malfavon was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on the assault count. His sentence on the murder count was stayed. Malfavon filed a resentencing petition under section 1172.6 in December 2023, and was later appointed counsel. The trial court dismissed his petition following a prima facie hearing. It found “[a] review of the record of conviction, including the instructions presented to the jury at trial, makes clear there was no felony murder doctrine or natural and probable consequences theory upon which the jury could have convicted [Malfavon]. [Malfavon] was determined to be the actual killer. Therefore, [Malfavon] would still be guilty of Murder under currently valid law.” Malfavon appealed. His counsel then filed a no-issue brief requesting independent review the record under Delgadillo. Specifically, his