Filed 7/1/24 P. v. Pickett CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SERGERVICK PICKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B331852

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA036097)

THE COURT:

Sergervick Pickett (defendant) appeals from the order of 

the trial court denying his petition for resentencing under Penal 

Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95).2 Defendant’s 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.

2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered 

section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 
2

appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief 

under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).

Under the standard articulated in Delgadillo, we decline 

counsel’s invitation to undertake an independent review of the 

record. Instead, we evaluate the arguments that defendant 

raises in his letter brief. (Delgadillo, at pp. 231-232.) Finding 

none of his arguments meritorious, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

3

A. The underlying crimes

One morning in September 1997, defendant entered a 

liquor store in Artesia, California. He jumped over the counter, 

pointed a gun at the owner, and announced a holdup. A struggle 

ensued during which the store owner was shot, and a stray bullet 

struck a customer at the other side of the counter. Defendant 

grabbed $9 from the cash register and fled.

Defendant then went on a crime spree and committed a 

string of armed robberies. In late November 1997, he robbed two 

people at a market in Long Beach, California, and threatened to 

shoot one of them in the head. In mid-December 1997, he 

committed a robbery in Torrance, California. In late December 

1997, he and an armed companion committed three more 

robberies in the Long Beach area. Finally, in February 1998, 

For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the section by its new 

numbering only. 

3 The following facts are drawn from this court’s 

nonpublished decision in defendant’s direct appeal from his 

conviction. (People v. Pickett (Mar. 6, 2000, B130830) [nonpub. 

opn.].)
3

defendant robbed three people in Bellflower, California, and 

threatened to kill all three of them when one of the male victims 

attempted to hide his money.

Defendant was identified by several victims and witnesses 

by the distinctive tattoo on his neck, and acknowledged 

committing most of the robberies, including the one where the 

store owner and customer were shot. 

B. Conviction and appeal

In February 1999, a jury found defendant guilty of 

attempted murder (§§ 664, 187), two counts of assault with a 

firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and 10 counts of second degree 

robbery (§ 211). The jury also found true various firearm

enhancements (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a), 

12022.53, subd. (b)), and great bodily injury enhancements (§ 

12022.7). Defendant was sentenced to 57 years in state prison,

and we affirmed his conviction on appeal. 

II. Procedural Background

On September 13, 2022, defendant filed a petition for 

resentencing and checked off all boxes on the form, including 

those alleging he was charged with attempted murder and the 

prosecutor proceeded under a theory of either felony murder, the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine, or some other theory 

under which malice was imputed to him. The trial court 

appointed counsel for appellant, and the parties submitted 

briefing for the court’s consideration.

On June 8, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on 

defendant’s petition. At that hearing, defendant’s own counsel 

conceded that defendant was not eligible for relief. The trial 

court found that the jury was not instructed on the natural and 
4

probable consequences theory of liability and summarily denied 

the petition.

Defendant filed this timely appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Pertinent Law

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill

1437) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine 

as a basis for murder liability and limited the scope of the felonymurder rule. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).)

Senate Bill 1437 authorizes the filing of a petition for

resentencing “to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a 

person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to 

kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who 

acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 

1015, § 1, subd. (f); Lewis, at p. 967.) Senate Bill 1437 changed 

the elements of murder by limiting the circumstances in which 

malice can be imputed. (People v. Solis (2020) 46 

Cal.App.5th 762, 779.)

Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), effective as of 

January 1, 2022, extended resentencing eligibility to individuals 

such as defendant who contend they were convicted of attempted 

murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. 

(Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1, subd. (a).) Section 1172.6 “applies by 

its terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and 

probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Coley (2022) 77 

Cal.App.5th 539, 548.)

II. Analysis

After defense counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, we notified 

defendant of that brief and gave defendant leave to file his own 

brief or letter stating grounds for appellate relief. Defendant 
5

filed a lengthy brief with exhibits in which he (1) asks us to 

reconsider his sentence “in light of changes in the sentencing 

laws”; (2) contends that the “victim provided false testimony”; (3) 

asserts there was prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) argues that

“there was a sentencing error.”

We do not have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s 

contentions, which are not properly raised in an appeal from the 

denial of a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. The petition 

for recall and resentencing under section 1172.6 is not another 

opportunity to challenge the original judgment on other grounds. 

(People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [filing a section 

1172.6 petition does not afford a new opportunity to raise claims 

of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 

the jury’s findings]; accord, People v. Burns (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 

862, 865 [“Section 1172.6 does not create a right to a second 

appeal”].) A defendant who believes he is serving a longer 

sentence than the law allows may challenge the sentence in a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Romero (1994) 8 

Cal.4th 728, 736-737.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 

petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.