People v. Soto CA2/4

Filed 11/12/25 P. v. Soto CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B340540

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA036418) v.

VICTOR SOTO

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ricardo R. Ocampo, Judge. Affirmed. Teresa Biagini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Victor Edgar Soto appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Soto filed a supplemental brief. We review the contentions Soto raises in his supplemental brief and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of the crime are in our previous nonpublished opinion, People v. Soto (Mar. 8, 2018, No. B270095). ~(2018 WL 1193004; Collins, Willhite, Manella)~ In 2015, Soto was charged with a murder and an attempted murder committed in 1996. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) Following a jury trial, Soto was convicted of both counts. The jury further found that Soto personally used a firearm in the commission of both offenses (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5).) The trial court sentenced Soto to 100 years to life. In January 2024, Soto filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court found the petition facially sufficient, appointed counsel for Soto, and ordered the People to file a response. The People filed an opposition, asserting that Soto was ineligible for resentencing in part because “[n]either natural and probable consequences nor felony murder were applicable theories of liability to this case nor were those instructions read to the jury.” Soto filed a reply. After a hearing in which the court and counsel discussed the case and jury instructions, the court denied the motion. The