Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Armendariz CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

DAVID ARMENDARIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B329819

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

TA092537)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. 

Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

A jury convicted defendant and appellant David 

Armendariz (defendant) and his codefendant Jonathan Juarez of 

first degree murder. The facts adduced at trial demonstrated 

Juarez was the shooter in the gang-related killing; defendant 

aided and abetted the murder. 

The jury found a gang enhancement attached to the murder 

charge true and the trial court found defendant had suffered two 

prior Three Strikes law convictions and two prior convictions 

within the meaning of Penal Code section 667(a)(1).1 The court 

sentenced defendant to a total of 85 years to life in prison. In 

2010, this court affirmed defendant’s conviction on direct appeal. 

Years later, defendant petitioned for resentencing pursuant 

to section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95). After appointing 

counsel and receiving briefs from the People and defendant, the 

trial court held a hearing and denied the petition based on its 

finding that defendant did not present a prima facie case for 

relief. The court found the jury instructions given at defendant’s 

trial revealed he was convicted of express malice, first degree 

murder.2 

Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to 

represent him. After examining the record, defendant’s attorney 

filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking that we follow 

the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 

216. We invited defendant to submit a supplemental brief.

1 Statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.

2 The appellate record establishes the jury was not 

instructed on either felony murder or the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine. 
3

Defendant submitted a two-page letter in response that (1) 

requests an evidentiary hearing because a set of car keys were 

never tested for DNA, (2) states his lawyer never gave him the 

option to choose whether he wanted a jury or bench trial, and (3) 

contends he is unable to pay victim restitution fees ordered as 

part of his sentence. We limit our consideration to these issues. 

(Delgadillo, 14 Cal.5th at 232 [where a defendant’s attorney finds 

no arguable issues in an appeal from the denial of a section 

1172.6 petition and the defendant files a supplemental brief, “the 

Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments 

presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion,” but the 

question of whether to conduct an independent review of the 

entire record is “wholly within the court’s discretion”].)

None of the arguments raised in defendant’s supplemental 

brief addresses his eligibility for resentencing under section 

1172.6. DNA testing, the question of a jury or bench trial, and 

restitution fees have no bearing on whether defendant could 

“presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because 

of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” 

(§ 1172.6(a)(3).) Defendant’s arguments accordingly provide no 

basis for reversal. (See, e.g., People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 

Cal.App.5th 428, 438 [section 1172.6 “does not permit a petitioner 

to establish eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error”].)
4

DISPOSITION

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

petition is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.