People v. Aguirre CA2/4

Filed 10/6/25 P. v. Aguirre CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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, B342033

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA087922 v.

JOSE PHILLIP AGUIRRE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Nancy Gaynor, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2008, a jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Jose Aguirre of murder under the provocative act doctrine. In 2019, Aguirre sought resentencing relief under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 The trial court denied Aguirre relief, and a different panel of this court affirmed the order denying relief, concluding among other things that the statute at that time, by its express terms, only extended relief to individuals convicted of murder under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine. In 2024, after the Legislature amended the statute to extend relief to individuals convicted of murder under any “theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)), Aguirre filed a new section 1172.6 resentencing petition, arguing that he is entitled to relief because his murder conviction under the provocative act doctrine was based on imputed malice. The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel, explaining that Aguirre’s arguments were previously addressed in prior rulings and he was not entitled to successive petitions. Aguirre now appeals the summary denial of his petition. On appeal, the parties agree that because the jury instructions at Aguirre’s trial allowed the jury to convict him of murder without finding he harbored malice, and in light of our Supreme Court’s recent holding that petitioners with pre-2009 murder convictions under the provocative act doctrine are not categorically ineligible for section 1172.6 relief (People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 727–731 (Antontelli)), the trial