People v. Solorza CA4/1

Filed 11/12/25 P. v. Solorza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085096

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF132370)

JOSE ALFREDO SOLORZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. Jose Alfredo Solorza, in pro. per.; and John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, a jury convicted Jose Alfredo Solorza of arson (Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c)) and first-degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true a special circumstance of torture-murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). Solorza, who was 15 years old at the time of the offenses, was sentenced to an

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder plus four years for the arson count. Solorza appealed and this court affirmed the judgment but remanded the case to the trial court to correct the custody credits. (People v. Solorza (July 18, 2012, D058184) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, Solorza filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction including the jury instructions, and held a hearing. The court found Solorza was tried as a direct participant, and there was no jury instruction on felony murder or natural and probable consequences of aiding and abetting. The court found Solorza did not establish a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law and denied the petition. Solorza filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We offered Solorza the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a brief. In his submission, Solorza attacks his underlying conviction on multiple grounds. He contends counsel at trial and on appeal were ineffective for failing to raise unidentified issues. His principal focus is that he is entitled to some relief because of his age. Solorza has not identified any potentially meritorious issues based on the record in this appeal. The facts of the offenses were discussed in this court’s opinion in the first appeal. We will not repeat the statement of facts here.