1

Filed 11/14/23 P. v. Roman CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ISIDRO PAVON ROMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A165444

 (San Mateo County

 Super. Ct. No. SC034149A)

Isidro Pavon Roman appeals from an order denying his petition for 

resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 (all further statutory

references are to the Penal Code). His appellate counsel filed an opening 

brief informing this court that he reviewed the record and could find no 

arguable issues to raise on appeal. Citing People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 

Cal.5th 216, counsel asked us to send his brief to Roman with notice 

“informing the defendant of his right to file a supplemental letter or brief and 

that if no supplemental letter or brief is filed within 30 days, the court may 

dismiss the matter.” (Id. at pp. 231-232.) We so informed Roman, and he

filed a supplemental brief that is three pages long. We have evaluated 

Roman’s arguments as best we understand them, and we find no issues of 
2

merit.1 (See id. at p. 232 [when appellate counsel has found no arguable 

issues and the appellant submits a supplemental brief or letter, “the Court of 

Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that 

brief”].) Accordingly, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Underlying Charges, Conviction, Sentence, and Appeal.

On April 12, 1994, Roman was charged by information with murder of 

Jose Manuel Gonzalez, in violation of section 187, subdivision (a). The 

information also alleged that Roman had personally used a firearm in the 

commission of that crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). 

On October 24, 1994, a jury found Roman not guilty of first degree 

murder, and guilty of second degree murder, and found the personal use of a 

firearm allegation true. 

Roman was sentenced to 15 years to life for second degree murder, with 

a consecutive term of four years for personal use of a firearm enhancement. 

This court affirmed the judgment in an opinion filed November 21, 

1995. (People v. Roman (Nov. 21, 1995, A068093) [nonpub. opn.].)

Petition for Resentencing 

On January 31, 2022, representing himself, Roman filed a petition for 

resentencing under section 1170.95 (since renumbered section 1172.6).2 The 

1 Roman has attached various “exhibits” (A through D) to his 

supplemental brief, and we find them irrelevant. They include a two-page 

declaration dated December 9, 2016, purporting to be from counsel who 

represented him in connection with a petition for DNA testing, and relating 

to the provision of documents to Roman; correspondence from the same

counsel dated March 22, 2011, related to the case file; a portion of an 

investigator’s report dated August 29, 2012; a portion of a ballistics report; 

and a portion of a sheriff’s report.

2 A person convicted of murder is eligible to petition for relief when he 

or she was “convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and 
3

district attorney filed an opposition, and Roman, then represented by counsel, 

filed a reply. The prosecution filed an additional reply brief and request for 

judicial notice, including the information, verdict forms, the jury instructions 

given at trial, and this court’s opinion on appeal. 

The trial court then held a hearing and denied the petition. The court 

stated, “in looking at the Information, the jury instructions, and the 

convictions, the petitioner was convicted of second degree murder with the 

probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is 

imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, 

attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or 

manslaughter.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) An eligible person may file a petition to 

have that “conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining 

counts.” (Ibid.) The petition must include a declaration by the petitioner 

stating that he or she “could not presently be convicted of murder or 

attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective 

January 1, 2019.” (Id., subds. (a)(3), (b)(1)(A).)

The petitioner must also (1) declare that “[a] complaint, information, or 

indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to 

proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and 

probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is 

imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, or 

attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine” 

and that “[t]he petitioner was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or 

manslaughter following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at 

which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder or attempted 

murder” (§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(1)–(2), (b)(1)(A)) and (2) provide the superior 

court case number and year of conviction (id., subd. (b)(1)(B)).

“When the trial court receives a petition containing the necessary 

declaration and other required information, the court must evaluate the 

petition ‘to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for 

relief.’ [Citations.] If the petition and record in the case establish 

conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may 

dismiss the petition.” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708.) But if 

“the defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, ‘the 

court shall issue an order to show cause.’ ” (Ibid.)
4

personal use of a firearm. [¶] I don’t have to get into the facts of this case 

because in looking at the jury instructions that were given here, those 

instructions made clear that the petitioner was not convicted under a theory 

where malice would be imputed to a person based on that person’s 

participation in a crime. He is not a co-defendant in this case. There’s no 

other charges of robbery or any such charges that would fall under either the 

felony murder rule or a natural and probable consequences theory. [¶] He is 

the only person convicted in this case of murder in the second degree. . . . He 

is the only person, based on the record, that was convicted for murder with 

the use of a firearm.” The court stated that Roman’s “claim fails based on the 

statute of what is required to show that he would be eligible for such resentencing.” 

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed Roman’s supplemental brief and find it difficult to 

discern how it relates to the order denying his petition for resentencing. 

The substantive portion of the brief is headed, “Defendant’s Grounds In 

Support of Motion” and consists primarily of 10 enumerated short 

paragraphs, most one sentence long, with no analysis or citation to the 

record. As best we can tell, these enumerated paragraphs are directed to 

Roman’s underlying conviction that was affirmed on appeal by this court in

1995, in case number A068093. None of these paragraphs has any bearing on 

this appeal, which concerns his petition to be resentenced under section 

1172.6.3 The remaining half page of the supplemental brief purports to

3 For example, paragraph 1, citing to “A.L.R.” addresses generic issues 

in jury instructions; paragraph 2 asserts “innassistance of trial counsel and 

appellate counsel for failed to investigate and prepare a defence;” paragraphs 

4, 5, and 6 assert “innassistance” related to expert witnesses; paragraphs 7 

and 8 assert “prosecution misconduct and inassistance of trial counsel;” 
5

assert a list of reasons “to review the entitle record and grant . . . resentence,” 

but these short statements are similarly not elucidating. Two statements cite

to non-compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, the federal 

analog to a Wende appeal, and allege non-specific “inassistance” of appellate 

counsel in “Wende” brief for failing to comply with Anders. Three others 

appear to relate to issues that might have been raised in the underlying

direct appeal, asserting without more, “sufficient of evidence re 2d degree 

murder,” “prejudice as a result of: prosecution misconduct for failed to 

disclose (extensive criminal record of [victim])”; and another simply posing 

the question “were all relevant lesser-including offenses given?” Even if we 

could discern the specific arguments being made, we decline to address them 

here because they are not before us on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The challenged order is affirmed.

paragraph 9 asserts a conspiracy between prosecution and trial counsel; 

paragraph 10 asserts “innassistance of counsel” because “no mitigating 

factors were presented at any time” in trial or on appeal.
6

_________________________

Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Stewart, P.J.

_________________________

Markman, J.*

A165444, People v. Roman

* Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.