California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2026 No. E085957Unpublished
Filed 1/5/26 P. v. Parra CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, E085957 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. INF1501389) v. OPINION ROBERT PARRA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam,
Judge. Affirmed.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Robert Parra appeals the denial of his Penal Code section 1172.61 petition to
vacate his conviction for murder. After his counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), Parra filed his own supplemental brief.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018, Reg. Sess.)
(Stats. 2018 ch.1015), effective January 1, 2019, which among other things amended the
definition of felony murder in section 189. This amended felony-murder rule restricted
culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was “a major
participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life”
unless the victim was a peace officer. (§ 189, subd. (e)(1)-(3), (f).) Senate Bill No. 1437
also added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows “[a] person
convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine,” to “file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the
petitioner’s murder . . . conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining
counts,” if, among other things, “[t]he petitioner could not presently be convicted of
murder” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)), because of the changes to the law wrought by Senate Bill
No. 1437. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).)
In February 2019 Parra pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to
15 years to life.
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
2
In January 2025 Parra filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The
court held a hearing on the petition in April 2025, where it concluded Parra was
convicted after Senate Bill No. 1437 went into effect, was therefore sentenced under the
law as it currently exists, and so was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. It
denied Parra’s petition, and Parra appealed.
ANALYSIS
On Parra’s request, we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel
filed a brief declaring they found no arguably meritorious issues to appeal, setting out a
statement of the case, and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.
When appealing from a postconviction order a defendant has no constitutional
right to independent review under Anders/Wende.2 (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at
pp. 227, 231.) Nevertheless, the appellate court is to inform the defendant that they may
personally file a supplemental brief, and “[i]f the defendant subsequently files a
supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific
arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.) “If the
defendant does not file a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal may dismiss
the appeal as abandoned.” (Ibid.) “If the appeal is dismissed as abandoned, the Court of
Appeal does not need to write an opinion but should notify the defendant when it
dismisses the matter.” (Ibid.) Here, after appellate counsel filed a brief notifying us
2 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
3
Parra’s appeal presented no arguable issues, we offered Parra an opportunity to file a
personal supplemental brief, and he did.
Parra’s supplemental brief argues that he is not guilty of the crime he admitted,
and that he believes section 1172.6 offers him some relief on that basis. We cannot and
do not address his claims about the underlying merits of his conviction, as those claims
cannot be considered on appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. (See People v. Burns (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 862, 865 [“Section 1172.6
does not create a right to a second appeal, and [a defendant] cannot use it to resurrect a
claim that should have been raised in his . . . direct appeal.”].) This is particularly true
here because Parra pled guilty, thus admitting that he committed the murder and
foregoing both a trial—where he could have contested the evidence against him—and
appellate review of that trial. We instead treat his supplemental brief as arguing that he is
entitled to resentencing under section 1172.6 on some other ground.
However, we agree with the trial court that Parra is ineligible for relief under
section 1172.6. That section applies only to those who “could not presently be convicted
of murder” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)), because of the changes to the law wrought by Senate
Bill No. 1437. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).) That is, section 1172.6 offers relief only to
defendants who were convicted under the law as it existed prior to Senate Bill No. 1437.
But Parra pled guilty and was convicted of murder after Senate Bill No. 1437 went into
effect. Because he was necessarily convicted under the law as it currently exists,
section 1172.6 does not apply to him. (See People v. Lezama (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th
4
583, 590 [holding “the most reasonable reading of the third criterion for establishing
resentencing eligibility is that at the time of conviction—i.e., the time the plea was
entered—the only way to a murder conviction was through an imputed malice theory. As
a matter of law, this cannot be true for a person, like defendant, who pled guilty . . . at a
time when imputed malice theories had already been statutorily eliminated.”].)
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his petition.
DISPOSITION
We affirm.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAPHAEL J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant convicted of murder after the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1437 is ineligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 because they were convicted under the current law.
Issues
Whether a defendant who pled guilty to murder after the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 is eligible for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Parra pled guilty and was convicted of murder after Senate Bill No. 1437 went into effect. Because he was necessarily convicted under the law as it currently exists, section 1172.6 does not apply to him.”