Filed 3/22/22 P. v. Salamanca CA2/1

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GUMARO SALAMANCA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B300962

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA082067)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Allen J. Webster, Jr., Judge. Reversed and 

remanded.

Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________
2

A jury convicted Gumaro Salamanca of first degree murder, 

attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder, and 

shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and found true several firearm 

and gang allegations. The trial court sentenced him to 50 years 

to life in prison. We conditionally reversed the conviction. 

(People v. Salamanca (Jan. 13, 2016, B254814) [nonpub. opn.].) In 

that decision, we concluded that Salamanca’s “conviction for . . . 

murder may have been [improperly] based on the . . . theory of 

natural and probable consequences.”

In 2019, Salamanca filed a petition for resentencing under 

Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Relief under section 1170.95 was 

available to an inmate convicted of murder under the natural and 

probable consequences, aiding and abetting doctrine but not to “a 

major participant in the underlying felony who acted with 

reckless indifference to human life.” (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, 

§ 1, subd. (f); People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.) 

The trial court found Salamanca was ineligible for relief

because he was a “major participant” in the murder and directly 

“aided and abetted because he was the one who drove not one 

place, but three places where three different crimes occurred.” 

The court therefore denied Salamanca’s petition without issuing 

an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.

Salamanca appealed that order, arguing that with respect 

to both his murder and attempted murder convictions, the court 

erred in denying his petition without issuing an order to show 

cause. We agreed as to his murder conviction but disagreed as to 

his conviction for attempted murder because the plain language 

1

All undesignated statutory references will be to the Penal 

Code.
3

of section 1170.95, subdivision (a) limited relief to persons 

“convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and 

probable consequences . . . theory.” No language in section 

1170.95 mentioned relief to persons convicted of attempted 

murder. Accordingly, we reversed the trial court’s order in part 

but also affirmed it in part.

Because the applicability of section 1170.95 to petitioners 

convicted of attempted murder was of statewide concern, our 

Supreme Court granted review of the decision and put the case in 

abeyance pending resolution of certain lead cases.

After our decision, the Legislature passed and the Governor 

signed into law Senate Bill No. 775, which amended subdivision 

(a) of section 1170.95 to permit relief for certain petitioners 

convicted of “attempted murder under the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine,” resolving an ongoing issue in the courts. 

(Sen. Bill No. 775 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.) at § 2.) The amended 

section 1170.95, subdivision (a)(3), states that relief for 

individuals convicted of attempted murder may be available if 

they could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted 

murder because of changes that Senate Bill No. 1437 made to 

sections 188 and 189 in 2018. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-3.)

Where a section 1170.95 petitioner’s jury was instructed on 

the natural and probable consequences theory of liability for 

attempted murder, but the trial court summarily denied the 

petition based on prior law, section 1170.95 now requires a 

reviewing court to reverse the judgment and remand the matter 

for further proceedings under subdivision (c). (People v. Montes

(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1001.)

Accordingly, on January 5, 2022, our Supreme Court 

transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our 
4

decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 

(Stats. 2021, ch. 551). (People v. Salamanca (Jan. 5, 2022, 

S269184) ___Cal.5th___ [2022 Cal. Lexis 71, at *1].)

Here, Respondent observes that the record reflects the jury 

was instructed on the faulty natural and probable consequences 

theory. Therefore, Respondent concedes, Salamanca is entitled to 

further proceedings under section 1170.95, subdivision (c).

We agree, and therefore vacate our prior decision and 

remand the matter for further proceedings pursuant to 

subdivision (c) of section 1170.95.

DISPOSITION

Our prior decision is vacated, the trial court’s order is 

reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. 

BENDIX, J.