People v. James CA2/4

Filed 8/20/25 P. v. James CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B340384

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA455600 v.

ANTHONY JEROME JAMES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deborah S. Brazil, Judge. Affirmed. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Anthony Jerome James appeals the superior court’s denial of his petition for relief under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (current Penal Code section 1172.6).1 Finding no error, we affirm. Section 1172.6 provides relief for certain individuals convicted of attempted murder under an imputed-malice theory of liability. The trial court concluded that because the jury at James’s attempted murder trial was never instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or any other form of imputed-malice theory of liability, the record of conviction demonstrates as a matter of law that James is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. It therefore denied James’s petition. On appeal, James contends he was entitled to section 1172.6 relief. After we appointed appellate counsel, appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues in the trial court’s ruling and requesting discretionary independent review of the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. James then filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. If, as here, appellate counsel finds no arguable issues exist in a postconviction appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, this court need not independently review the record. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) And if, as here, the defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief, this court need evaluate only the arguments presented in that brief. (Ibid.) Turning to those arguments, James’s supplemental brief asks this court to conclude that his attempted murder conviction was barred by double jeopardy principles. He also contends that