People v. Sandoval CA2/5

Filed 9/15/25 P. v. Sandoval CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B341753

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. TA147144)

FRANK SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hector Gutierrez, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Jennifer Peabody and Keilana Truong, 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, Scott A. Taryle, Marc A. Kohm, and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Frank Sandoval appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for vacatur of his attempted murder conviction and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court found Sandoval prima facie ineligible for relief because Sandoval pleaded guilty to attempted murder in 2019, after the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437). The trial court concluded that, because Senate Bill 1437 had abrogated the natural and probable consequences theory of attempted murder before his plea, Sandoval could not have been convicted under that theory of liability. Sandoval contends that, despite its intent that Senate Bill 1437 apply to attempted murder convictions, the Legislature did not clarify that it had abrogated natural and probable consequences attempted murder until it promulgated Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775), several years after his conviction. In the interim, the District Attorney’s Office had taken the position that defendants could still be prosecuted for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and the Courts of Appeal were divided on the issue. Sandoval asserts that, when he pleaded guilty he could still have been prosecuted under that now-invalid theory. The People concede the issue and agree that because nothing in the record precludes Sandoval from prima facie eligibility the court’s order must be reversed and the matter remanded.